Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.

Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Charles Edwards, Sir Patrick Ford, Sir Leolin Forestier-Walker, Colonel Gretton, Mr. Frederick Hall, Mr. George Lambert, Mr. William Nicholson, Mr. David Reid, Sir Samuel Roberts, and Major McKenzie Wood nominated Members of the Committee of Selection.—[Sir Frederick Thomson.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Edinburgh Corporation (Sheriff Court House, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill,

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

Kilmarnock Gas Provisional Order Bill,

Read a Second time; and ordered (under Sections 9 and 16 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MAIDSTONE EXTENSION) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the

Cases considered under the Anomalies Regulations by Courts of Referees in Great Britain up to 9th November, 1931.


Class of person (Section 1 (2). Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, 1931).
Cases considered.
Number allowed.
Number disallowed.


(b) Seasonal workers
7,706
1,864
5,842


(d) Married Women
81,716
10,149
71,567


(a) and (c) Persons habitually or normally workingfor part only of the week.
218
55
163


Total
89,640
12,068
77,572

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour how many men and women have been called before the courts of referees under the Anomalies Act at the Employment Exchange in Birming-

Borough of Maidstone," presented by Sir Hilton Young; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 9.]

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT (ANOMALIES REGUATIONS).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 1
asked the Minister of Labour (1) the total number of married women who have had their cases reviewed under the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, 1931, and the total refused benefit;
(2) the total number of seasonal workers who have had their cases reviewed under the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, 1931, and the total refused benefit;
(3) the total number of persons who have been refused benefit who are classified as persons who work for less than a full week and who are also classified as persons whose normal employment is not for more than two days in a week?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

ham up to the 9th November, and what proportion have been refused further benefit?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Up to 9th November, 1931, the Birmingham Court
of Referees had considered 2,044 cases (all of which related to married women) under the Anomalies Regulations, and benefit was disallowed in 1939 cases. Cases are referred to this court of referees from the Birmingham and Coles-hill Employment Exchanges.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of cases referred to the court of referees under the Anomalies Act from the areas supervised from Wigan and St. Helens, specifying the number of women, and stating the number denied unemployment benefits up to the latest date for which information is available?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Up to 9th November, 1931, the court of referees at Wigan had considered 261 cases under the Anomalies Regulations, all of which related to women, and had disallowed benefit in 255. During the same period the St. Helens Court of Referees considered 481 cases (all of which related to married women) and disallowed benefit in 469.

Captain GUNSTON: Is it not a fact that this Anomalies Act was passed by the Labour Government?

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed struck off the registers at Margate and Ramsgate under the new seasonal workers regulations as at 17th November?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Up to 9th November, 1931, the Margate Court of Referees had considered the cases of 105 male and 72 female seasonal workers under the Anomalies Regulations, and had disallowed benefit in the cases of 84 men and 67 women. During the same period the Ramsgate Court of Referees considered the cases of 43 men and 133 women and disallowed benefit in 34 and 111, respectively. The persons affected by the disallowances are not struck off the register unless they cease to attend at the Exchange.

Captain BALFOUR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many more cases are to come under the survey of the courts of referees?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir; I cannot.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is this Act working, from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, in the direction of saving money?

Mr. McGOVERN: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of courts held at the Parkhead Employment Exchange in connection with the Anomalies Act; the names of the chairmen of the courts of referees; and the amount of money drawn by each chairman up to 14th November for special work under the Act?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I will ascertain and let the hon. Member know the number of sittings of courts of referees, and the amount of fees paid, which would, of course, be at the ordinary rate. I am not prepared to state the names of chairmen or others who formed the courts cm particular occasions.

Mr. McGOVERN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state any reason why the chairmen's names should not be published?

Sir H. BETTERTON: This question was considered on many occasions by my predecessor, and she came to the conclusion, with which I agree, that it would not be desirable to publish on particular-occasions the names either of the chairman or the members of; the court,.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is perfectly true that we plied the late Minister with the same questions, but I want to ask the Minister what is the reason for not divulging the names? We want to know the names and how much money they are getting for this job. 'Some of them are walking away with young fortunes.

Sir H. BETTERTON: With regard to that part of the question, I have already told the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) that the amounts would be given to him. The hon. Member will get an answer on that point.

Mr. MAXTON: What is the reason for withholding the names? Is it regarded as being something dishonourable to form part of this particular branch of the service?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir. On the contrary, it is considered a highly honourable service—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You mean, well paid.

Sir H. BETTERTON: It is not considered desirable that the names of the chairman and those who form particular courts on particular occasions should be given.

MONMOUTHSHIRE.

Mr. DAGGAR: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of persons registered at the Employment Exchanges in the administrative area of the Monmouthshire County Council at the latest available date; and the number who will be transferred to the public assistance committees for calculation of benefit when the new proposals come into operation?

Sir H. BETTERTON: At 9th November, 1931, there were 24,986 men and women on the registers of Employment Exchanges within the area of the Monmouthshire Administrative County. The number affected by the No. 2 Order in Council on 12th November was about 11,000.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS (ASSESSMENT OF MEANS).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can state the nature of the instructions given to public assistance committees with regard to the application for transitional benefit by any man who owns a house and possesses savings; and whether any cases have yet been brought to his notice where any man applying for such benefit has been required to sell or mortgage his house or encroach on the capital value of his savings?

Brevet Colonel BROADBENT: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in reviewing the needs of an applicant for transitional payment under the Unemployment Insurance Act, the public assistance committee will take into account the capital of the appellant or only the household income?

Mr. JOEL: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the principles governing action by the public assistance committees in assessing means under the new transitional benefit arrangements, especially in respect of houses part-purchased on the instalment system?

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: 32 and 33.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether his attention has been called
to the administration of the means test for unemployed persons in certain parts of Lancashire; and whether he will issue an order making it quite clear to the public assistance committees that only the income of the assets held shall be taken into account and that the realisation of such assets is not necessary before unemployment benefit can be granted;
(2) whether he will consider issuing special instructions to the public assistance committees who are to assess unemployment benefit under the means test with the object of impressing upon them that disability pensions were granted for disabilities, and that the disabled unemployed who is in greater need as a result of his disablement shall not have his pension taken into account when assessing the amount of the benefit to be paid him?

Mr. SOPER: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulties encountered by public assistance committees in applying the means test to persons whose savings have not, been invested in interest-bearing securities; and will he take steps to see that a ruling is given governing these cases in such a way that thrift is not penalised?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have no authority under the Order-in-Council governing transitional payments to give instructions to local authorities as to the manner in which the resources of an applicant for transitional payments should be taken into account. I have, however, in consultation with my right hon. Friends, the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, issued to all authorities a circular drawing their attention to certain considerations which may be properly borne in mind in determining the needs of applicants who are in possession of assets such as house property, or invested savings or are in receipt of certain classes of income such as disability pensions. The circular, amongst other things, says:
There is no authority for the statement that public assistance committees are obliged to bring into account the whole amount of an ex-service pension or disability pension;
and again,
It should, however, be remembered that where certain classes of income are con-
cerned, such, for example, as disability pensions or blind pensions, the disability in respect of which the pension has been awarded may be such as to call for a greater measure of assistance than would normally be appropriate.
I have sent copies of this circular to my hon. Friends and have placed a substantial supply in the Vote Office.

Sir W. BRASS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the circular to which he refers, No. L.A. 3, is not definite on this point at all? The circular merely states that under certain conditions certain things can arise. Could my right hon. Friend not be much more definite in that circular about assets, about the selling of property, and about only the income being taken into calculation?

Sir H. BETTERTON: In the very long reply I have just given I have done my best to make it clear that it is the desire of the Government that public assistance committees should deal sympathetically with these cases, and should regard these as cases in which full weight should be given to the special circumstances of the particular applicant.

Mr. LAWSON: Is it not still true that fundamentally the old means test, the destitution test, as far as public assistance committees are concerned, is applied?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No; the circular to which I have referred was a circular issued by Mr. Greenwood, who was, of course, a member of the same Government as the hon. Gentleman. That circular, I think, dealt both humanely and sympathetically with this question, and I have no desire to alter it.

Mr. LAWSON: Yes, but is it not still true that the law lays it down, and the inspectors may insist on it, that, as far as the public assistance committees are concerned, they are simply the old Poor Law, and that the destitution test still holds good?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I do not at all accept that as a true interpretation.

Mr. LAWSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that the Ministry of Health inspectors will not enforce that?

Sir H. BETTERTON: That question should be addressed, not to me, but to the Minister of Health. I have given the fullest reply to the question, and I have dealt very fairly with the matter.

Sir W. BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give ah undertaking that no hardships will arise as a result of this means test?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Clearly, that is a question which I cannot possibly answer. But I have shown by my answer that the Government are most anxious that these cases should not be dealt with unsympathetically by the public assistance committees.

Mr. McGOVERN: In connection with disability pensions, will the right hon. Gentleman regard it as illegal from his point of view if public assistance committees do not take disability pensions into consideration?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No. I am not in the position and have no power to give instructions to public assistance committees. What I have done has been to call attention to the desire of the Government that these cases should not be considered unsympathetically.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not a fact that the Poor Law authorities can, if they care, take into account the full disability pension, and that the right hon. Gentleman has no power to intervene?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have no reason to suppose that any public assistance committee would act in that way.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour the increased cost involved by the appointment of investigators consequent upon the operation of the means test?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on this subject on 12th November to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson).

Mr. McGOVERN: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will issue regulations concerning the means test, in order that uniformity may be ensured in connection with disability pensions and scales of allowances?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday on this subject to the hon. Lady, the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone).

Mr. LAWSON: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will give the number of transition cases, inclusive of those who have received more than 26 weeks' benefit, for each of the divisions in the United Kingdom, with the total number of unemployed for each division?

Persons on the Registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain.


Division.
Number of persons on the registers at 26th October, 1931.
Number of men and women with claims authorized for transitional benefit at 26th October, 1931, together with the approximate number of men and women in receipt of benefit other than transitional benefit, who had received 156 days' benefit or more in their current benefit years.


South Eastern (including London).
436,724
89,381


South Western
146,550
34,882


Midlands
369,932
116,339


North Eastern
567,425
196,668


North Western
630,233
246,730


Scotland
369,766
139,821


Wales
205,462
79,529


Great Britain
2,726,092
903,350

Mr. LAWSON: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can give the number of transition cases, inclusive of those who have received more than 26 weeks' benefit, which will have to be dealt with by each public assistance committee in Great Britain; and the total for the whole country?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Statistics giving the number of cases to be dealt with by each public assistance committee are not available. I will send the hon. Member a statement giving the latest available figures for each Employment Exchange in the various county boroughs and administrative counties.

Mr. LAWSON: 69.
asked the Minister of Health whether there has been any increase in the number of inspectors who attend the meetings of public assistance committees as the result of the operation of transition cases under the Order-in-Council; and, if so, whether he can give the number?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): The answer to the first

Sir H. BETTERTON: Figures are not available for any date later than 26th October, when the new provisions as to transitional payments had not come into operation. I will, however, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving such figures as are available for 26th October.

Mr. LAWSON: Will that include the 26 weeks people?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes.

Following is the statement:

part of the question is in the negative and the second part does not therefore arise.

WORK SCHEMES.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour what public schemes are at present in operation with the view of providing work for persons who would otherwise be unemployed; whether it is proposed to submit other schemes in the near future; and, if not, what steps it is proposed to adopt to deal with the unemployed during the financial year ending 31st March, 1932?

Sir H. BETTERTON: On 25th September there were altogether 2,700 schemes in operation, providing direct employment on that date for about 111,700 men, and, it is estimated, indirect employment for about the same number of persons. A few further schemes giving work in the coming winter will probably be sanctioned by the Unemployment Grants Committee. Allowing for the completion of some schemes and the commencement of others, the number em-
ployed in the coming winter will probably remain about the same as the figure I have given.

ECONOMIES.

Mr. HICKS: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is in a position to state the anticipated saving to the Un employment Insurance Fund consequent on the operation of Section 1 (1, b) of the Unemployment Insurance (National Economy (No. 2) Order, 1931, No. 853?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am afraid I am not in a position to give any reliable estimate for the saving under Section 1 (1, b) of the Order taken separately.

Mr. HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Section 1 (1, b) of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Order, 1931, will deprive of benefit those workers who satisfy the first statutory condition, namely, those who have 30 or more stamps to their credit in the preceding two years, and who, under this Order, after 26 weeks' benefit in any one year, are not allowed again standard benefit until 10 additional stamps are affixed?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Gentleman has asked rather a complicated question, and I would like to see it on the Paper before giving a definite answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour whether there are any aliens in this country who are in receipt of unemployment benefit; if so, what is the number; and how many aliens are resident in Great Britain and have been so resident for more than 12 months who are employed in occupations in this country in which there is considerable unemployment?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.

Sir F. HALL: Do I understand that the information in the first part of the question is not available? Surely it should be available?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Perhaps it should be, but I am afraid that it is not. What we have to do is to consider, before
granting benefit, not the nationality but the insurance qualifications of the alien.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What constitutes an alien? Is it being able to pay £10 for a naturalisation fee, or being too poor to do so?

Sir H. BETTERTON: That is a question of law to which I could not give an answer without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.

Mr. HURD: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the increase of unemployment in many agricultural districts, he will consider the necessity of framing a separate scheme of unemployment insurance for agricultural workers, under which the weekly payments will be such as these workers can afford?

Sir H. BETTERTON: This is one of the matters before the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance, and I am bound to await their report.

Mr. HURD: Has the fact been brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice that in many of the agricultural areas this is becoming a really acute question; and will he take means to expedite the consideration of the matter by this body?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am aware that this matter is arousing interest in the agricultural districts. With regard to the expediting of the report, I hope as much as anybody else that we will get it soon. When that will be I cannot say, but I hope by about the end of next month.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLOTMENT HOLDERS.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the representations of the National Allotments Society to the effect that in computing the means of those applying for unemployment benefit the value of crops grown on their allotment gardens should not be taken into account; and what action he intends to take in this connection in consideration of the need of giving every possible encouragement to the allotment movement?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have no power to issue instructions to local authorities in this matter, but I have no reason to doubt that authorities will deal with applicants for transitional payments who are cultivating allotments for the use of their own households with a full apprecia-
tion of the national importance of encouraging such cultivation.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the Government intend to do about the iniquitous Land Values Tax passed by the last Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ASSISTANCE COMMITTEES (TEMPORARY STAFF).

Mr. HICKS: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that public assistance committees are engaging temporary clerks at rates of pay which are considerably in excess of those paid to temporary civil servants; and whether, since the work is substantially the same as that done at the Ministry of Labour Employment Exchanges, he proposes to consider the readjustment of the pay of the latter type of employé?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I understand that the rates of pay of temporary staff engaged by Public Assistance Committees vary a good deal, according to local standards. I am not in a position to say generally how they compare with the

Men and Women* on the Registers of certain Employment Exchanges.


Employment Exchange
9th November, 1931.
10th November, 1930.



Men.
Women.
Total.
Men.
Women.
Total.


High Wycombe
…
…
754
49
803
401
25
426


Slough†
…
…
1,566
179
1,745
904
126
1,030


Marl w
…
…
240
20
260
82
5
87


 * Separate statistics for juveniles are not available. All juveniles in Buckinghamshire who register for employment are included in the returns f it the Aylesbury Juvenile Employment Bureau.


† The figures include 309 men at 9th November, 1931, and 368 at 10th November, 1930, from depressed areas who were attending the Training Centre.

Sir A. KNOX: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of workers transferred from depressed areas to High Wycombe, Slough and Marlow, respectively, during the past two years; and whether this transference has now ceased?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Since the beginning of 1930, 490, 555 and 57 persons have been transferred from depressed areas to High Wycombe, Slough and Mar-low respectively. This total of 1,102 includes 609 men placed in State-aided schemes as a condition of grant. There

rates of pay of temporary clerks in the service of the Ministry, which are those common to the whole of Government service; nor can I agree that the work is substantially the same in the two cases. I may add that the scale of pay of Government temporary clerks is governed by agreement and a claim for an increase in certain cases is now before the Industrial Court.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand from this question that the Labour party desire to depress the standard of wages?

Oral Answers to Questions — BUCKINGHAMSHIRE.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour the number now unemployed at High Wycombe, Slough and Marlow, respectively, and the number who were unemployed at the corresponding date last year?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

have been temporary cessations from time to time in these transfers to correspond with the incidence of vacancies in the locality but, generally speaking, this is an area in which opportunities for employment are relatively favourable and I do not think I ought entirely to exclude men from depressed areas from having some share in such employment.

Sir A. KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration that unemployment there is greater now than it has ever been?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I know that, as regards the area represented by the hon. and gallant Member, that is so, but I would point out that the result of this transfer scheme has actually been to give employment to those in the area, because while, under the grant, a proportion of those employed are taken from the depressed areas, on the other hand the larger proportion are engaged locally.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL COMMISSION (REPORT).

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour when it is expected that the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance will issue its final report?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance is still taking evidence, and I am afraid it is too early to say when its final report may be expected. I hope to get it about the end of this year, or the beginning of next year.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if either he or his Government intend to pay the slightest attention to this report?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir, we do.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD SCHEMES, DURHAM.

Mr. BATEY: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that numbers of men are likely to be added to the unemployment register in the south and west parts of the county of Durham owing to the closing down of road schemes; and what steps the Government propose to take to provide work for these men?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. BATEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question?

Sir H. BETTERTON: This question only appeared on the Paper yesterday, and before an adequate answer can be given of course I must make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATISTICS.

Mr. MAXTON: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour the industries in which the numbers of unemployed have decreased during recent weeks?

Sir H. BETTERTON: A comparison of the numbers and percentages of insured persons unemployed in various industries at 21st September and 26th October is given on pages 432 and 433 of the November issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette. Industry figures for a later date are not yet available.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE INSTRUCTION CENTRES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour how many juveniles are at present undergoing instruction in training centres; and whether the numbers are increasing or diminishing?

Sir H. BETTERTON: At the end of October there were 17,639 boys and 6,324 girls in attendance at Junior Instruction Centres and Classes or attending as a condition for the receipt of benefit courses of instruction in other educational institutions. The totals have recently been fairly constant.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENGINEERING INDUSTRY.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour how many men in the engineering industry are included in the 422,147 extra unemployed over last year?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Between 27th October, 1330, and 26th October, 1931, the latest date for which an industrial analysis is available, the total number of insured persons recorded as unemployed in Great Britain increased by 476,507.The corresponding increase among insured men in the general engineering cassification was 35,461.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTURBANCES, SALFORD.

Mr. TINKER: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to make a statement in respect of the disturbance which took place at Salford on 1st October between the police and the unemployed procession; and will he say what steps the Home Office will take in the matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): Having carefully considered a report of the facts of this occurrence, which I obtained at the time, I reached the conclusion that the circumstances were not such as to call for any action on my part.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHELMSFORD PRISON.

Lieut-Colonel Sir VIVIAN HENDERSON: 35 and 36.
asked the Home Secretary (1) how much money has been spent on Chelmsford Prison since it was decided to reopen it, inclusive of the cost of erection of the tinsmiths' shop but exclusive of the £3,300 for the purchase of land;
(2) with regard to the proposal again to close Chelmsford Prison, whether he can give any undertaking that the scheme for utilising the prison will only be held up temporarily; and what steps will be taken to ensure that the prison does not again fall into disrepair?

Sir H. SAMUEL: It has been contemplated that Chelmsford Prison shall be opened as a special prison for a selected class of prisoners, and with this object alterations, repairs and improvements have been carried out at a cost of £4,984. In accordance with the general policy of searching for all possible means of economy, this scheme and other questions relating to the allocation of the prison population are being further considered, and I am not at present in a position to make a statement about the future use of Chelmsford Prison.

Sir V. HENDERSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the last part of Question 36, as to what steps will be taken to ensure that the prison does not again fall into disrepair?

Sir H. SAMUEL: That will be borne in mind, of course. It has not been decided to abandon the prison, and, while the matter is under consideration, of course, the buildings will be maintained.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (NATURALISATION).

Sir F. HALL: 37.
asked the Home Secretary how many aliens have become naturalised British subjects during the two years ended 30th September; and how many of these are engaged in occupations in this country in which there is any considerable amount of unemployment?

Sir H. SAMUEL: The annual returns presented to Parliament show that, in 1929, 1,149 certificates of naturalisation were granted, and in 1930, 1,409. The number granted during the first nine
months of this year is 1,514. The information requested in the second part of the question does not exist and I regret that I do not feel justified in undertaking in present circumstances any special inquiry on this subject. The occupation, if any, of every person to whom a certificate has been granted, is given in the monthly lists published in the London Gazette.

Sir F. HALL: How does the right hon. Gentleman account for the enormous increase during the first nine months of this year, during which the number was apparently larger than for the whole of the previous year?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I am told that the increase in the number of certificates is due partly to simplification of the forms on which applications for naturalisation are made, and partly to successful efforts made by the Home Office to overtake arrears.

Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that it is not made easier for these people to come over here and take work from our own people?

Sir H. SAMUEL: That does not arise, because the sort of persons who are naturalised have had to be in this country for at least five years.

Oral Answers to Questions — HORNSEY MUNICIPAL ELECTION.

Mr. HURD: 40.
asked the Home Secretary if he has considered the representations from the Borough of Hornsey as to the recent municipal election when one candidate forced a contest in seven wards, thus wasting much public money; and whether he will initiate or support a measure to limit a candidate's right of contest to one ward in a borough?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I realise the trouble and expense caused by such candidatures. The matter is under consideration, and I am at present in communication with the Association of Municipal Corporations on the subject.

Mr. HURD: Could the right hon. Gentleman give me any idea when we are likely to have a definite answer on the subject?

Sir H. SAMUEL: As soon as I receive a reply from the Association of Municipal
Corporations, the matter will be gone into further, and I will communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any law to prevent a Member of Parliament running for more than one division?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Not so far as I am aware, but that does not arise out of this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISON-MADE GOODS.

Mr. McGOVERN: 41.
asked the Home Secretary what articles are produced by convict and prison labour; how these articles are disposed of; and if he can give an undertaking to stop the dumping of these articles in the open market?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Except for a very occasional sale of a few special articles to private purchasers at a price not below the market price, all the articles made in prisons in England and Wales are utilised by the Prison Department or by other Government Departments. The second part of the question does not therefore arise. A list of prison industries is given in an appendix to the annual reports of the Prison Commissioners. Questions as regards the position in Scotland should be addressed to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOP HOURS.

Earl CASTLE STEWART: 42.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can furnish a statement which will show the hours beyond which it is illegal to offer for sale in retail shops or premises articles of general consumption?

Sir H. SAMUEL: The answer to this question would involve a detailed statement of the provisions of the law which are embodied in the Shops Act, 1912, and the Shops (Hours of Closing) Act, 1928, and I can only refer the Noble Lord to the provisions of those Statutes.

Earl CASTLE STEWART: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he intends to introduce legislation on this matter?

Sir H. SAMUEL: No, I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 43.
asked the Home Secretary the number of Income Tax defaulters in gaol at the present time and during each month of the current year?

Sir H. SAMUEL: The information for which the hon. Member asks is not available in the form which he desires, but I understand that the number of persons known to have been committed to prison in default of payment of Income Tax during the present year up to date is 77. I cannot say how many are now in prison or were received during each month without inquiry at each prison, but I will obtain this information if the hon. Member wishes.

Mr. HUTCHISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the smallest amount for which a defaulter can be inprisoned?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Will the hon. Member be good enough to give me notice of that question?

Mr. CLARRY: 72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will at once take steps to initiate a special form of Income Tax or levy on the incomes derived by foreign actors and actresses when performing in this country?

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 74.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps in respect of the earnings of foreign musicians in this country to adopt the American system, whereby foreign performers must declare the amount earned in that country and cannot leave until the appropriate Income Tax has been paid?

The CHANCELLOR of the EX-CHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Proposals relating to foreign artists who earn money on short visits to this country have been considered several times in recent years. The whole question of the collection of tax from such persons is a difficult one, while the amount of tax at stake is relatively small. I will, however, give the matter my consideration.

Sir W. BRASS: Could not the deduction of taxes be made at the source?

Mr. HALL - CAINE: 73.
asked the Chancellor the Exchequer whether the machinery of the Inland Revenue Department will be sufficient to ensure within the current financial year the issue of assessments to all the 4,000,000 Income Tax payers brought in under the last Budget; and, if not, whether this will affect the balancing of the Budget?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have every expectation that practically the whole of the Income Tax charge for the current financial year will have been assessed in time for payment to be made within the year.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 80.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to state what arrangements will be made in the collection of Income Tax due on the 1st January, to carry out the promise of his predecessor in regard to any cases of hardship arising from the payment of the increased instalment of three-quarters of the tax?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My predecessor undertook that consideration would be shown m any case of hardship arising from the payment of the increased instalment of three-quarters. The Board of Inland Revenue are accordingly authorising collectors of taxes in such cases to accept a substantial payment on account in January, provided that the taxpayer promises to pay the balance without further application not later than the first week in March. Any taxpayer, who is liable to pay an instalment of three-quarters on the 1st of January, but finds it impossible to pay the whole sum on that date, can arrange accordingly with his collector of taxes.
I must, however, make it quite clear that this arrangement is to apply only to cases of hardship where the taxpayer cannot find the whole sum immediately. Taxpayers who can meet their liabilities should make a special effort this year to pay their Income Tax when it falls due. It is of great importance to the national finances that we should get early payment of the Income Tax and realise the Budget Estimates for the year, and, in order that the individual taxpayer should have this brought to his notice, I have authorised the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to issue with the In-
come Tax demand notes a copy of the appeal for early payment that was made by my predecessor during the passage of the second Finance Act.

Mr. THORNE: If everyone paid his Income Tax when it became due would it not save a great deal of money through the Government not having to issue Treasury Bills?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Obviously, if taxes are paid when they are due it would save a great deal of money.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Seeing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to give consideration to Income Tax payers, will he also give consideration to the poor members of the working-class who are not able to pay rent at the moment and are faced with eviction? Will he set somebody aside to look into that matter?

Mr. MAXTON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman what machinery he proposes to set up to investigate the cases of hardship in connection with Income Tax?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it will be necessary to set up any machinery. My experience is that persons who suffer hardship are always quite ready to provide the machinery themselves.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it only the hardship of the rich which is to be considered, and not the hardship of the poor?

LAND VALUES TAX.

Sir F. HALL: 78.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state what steps the Government intend taking with regard to the discontinuance of the expenditure on the valuation of land under the terms of Part III of the Finance Act, 1931; and, if a decision has not yet been arrived at, whether he will undertake to make a definite statement on the subject before the House rises for the Christmas vacation?

Mr. CADOGAN: 83.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement as to the policy of the Government in respect of land valuation under the Land Tax proposals in the Finance Act of 1931 before the House adjourns for the Christmas Recess?

Sir W. BRASS: 85.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to make a pronouncement as to the future of Part III (Land Taxation Duties) of the Finance Act, 1931, before the House rises for the Christmas Recess?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope to be able to make a statement on this subject before the House rises for the Christmas Recess.

Sir W. BRASS: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is an overwhelming majority in this House in favour of repealing this Measure?

Sir V. HENDERSON: 87.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that there is no statutory provision to prevent the discharge of valuers at present engaged on land valuation under Part III of the Finance Act, 1931, he will take steps to discharge this staff as soon as possible?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Until the Government as a whole have reached a final conclusion as to the future of the provisions of Part III of the Finance Act, 1931, I do not think that it is possible to take any action on the lines suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.

UNITED STATES AND FRANCE (BRITISH CREDITS).

Mr. LAMBERT: 79.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount in sterling of recent British borrowing in France and America; and whether any portion of these loans has been repaid?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The two Treasury credits were for the approximate equivalent of £40,000,000 each in francs and dollars. As regards the credits granted to the Bank of England by the Bank of France and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which has already been published, and of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. LAMBERT: Could the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer to the last part of the question, and say whether any portion of these loans has been repaid?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think my hon. Friend will find that information in the answer.

BEER DUTY.

Mr. JOEL: 81.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is able to make any statement as to the prospects of realising the extra revenue anticipated from, the increase of duty on beer as imposed in the September Budget?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. It would be premature to draw any conclusions yet.

INTER-ALLIED DEBTS (PAYMENTS AND RECEIPTS).

Mr. TH0RNE: 84.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the total amount of the payments to the United States Government on account of the British War Debt, and the total amount received by this country on account of Allied War Debts to date?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total amount of the payments to the United States Government on account of the British War Debt to date is £326,200,000, and the total amount received by this country on account of Allied War Debts to date is £71,275,000.

ECONOMIES.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 89.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the net savings effected by departmental economies carried out since the introduction of the last Budget; and whether such economies have been in any way affected and, if so, how, by any estimated rise in prices in the coming year?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): I am not quite certain that I have correctly appreciated the point to which my hon. Friend refers. If he has in mind the progress of the economies outlined in the White Paper (Command Paper 3952), I have every reason to hope that the estimates will be substantially realised, though it would be premature to attempt to give any exact figures. As regards the last part of the question, direct expenditure on stores, material and foodstuffs is not a large part of the Budget and the effect of any probable rise in prices is unlikely seriously to disturb the estimates.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (TEACHERS' SALARIES).

Sir KENYON VAUGHAN-MORGAN: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is prepared to approve arrangements whereby the National Association of School masters may be granted representation on the elementary teachers' panel of the Burnham Committee?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): My right hon. Friend yesterday received a deputation from the National Association of Schoolmasters and heard a full statement of their claims for representation on the Standing Joint Committee on the Salaries of Teachers in Elementary Schools. After careful consideration he came to the conclusion that it would not add to the usefulness of the proceedings of the committee if representation were given to this association.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Mr. MAXTON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister what is the annual cost of the Economic Advisory Council; and if he proposes to continue it?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): As regards the first part of the question, the cost of the Economic Advisory Council, including salaries, wages and miscellaneous items, is now at the reduced rate of £5,944 per annum; the answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. MAXTON: Have there been any changes in personnel with the changes of Government that have taken place?

The PRIME MINISTER: Only in so far as the changes of office have affected changes in personnel. I believe there has been one resignation.

Mr. MAXTON: Then are the experts who are advising the Government on economic matters now exactly the same experts who advised the late Lebour Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is so.

Mr. MAXTON: Then does the right hon. Gentleman not think that is just a trifle dangerous?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am most reluctant to diminish the success of the late Labour Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

Mr. MAXTON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister how long the House will be without the services of an Attorney-General; and to whom questions usually answered by him should be addressed in the interval?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope the absence of the Attorney-General will be of a temporary nature. Questions normally dealt with by him should be addressed to the Solicitor-General.

Mr. MAXTON: Is he competent to perform all the duties of the Attorney-General?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Mr. REMER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister when the Bill dealing with agriculture is to be introduced; and if it will be passed through all its stages before the House rises for the Recess?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that it is impossible to say when a Bill dealing with agriculture will be introduced. The whole subject of agriculture is under active consideration.

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the urgency of the question, particularly as respects arable farming? If I put a question down on Monday, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give me an answer?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that on Monday I can only repeat what I have said but we are aware of the urgency of the question.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a cargo of Russian butter arrived in Cork Harbour, and the Irish Parliament put a heavy duty on it the same day? Can he not take a leaf out of their book?

The PRIME MINISTER: We can only envy the rapidity of action which is possible to the Irish Parliament but is not possible to us.

MALTING BARLEY.

Captain BALFOUR: 93.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that farmers in East Kent are unable to sell malting barley owing to brewers suffering from loss of trade due to increased beer taxation; and if the Government will consider securing the use of a greater proportion of home-produced malting barley by means of a tax on foreign whole barley or a compulsory quota of English produce for malting purposes?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): I regret I have no information to enable me to say whether the position is as indicated in the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question. The suggestions put forward in the second part will certainly come under review in connection with the consideration of the Government's agricultural policy which is now taking place.

Captain BALFOUR: May I take it that if I give the right hon. and gallant Gentleman information with regard to 5,000 unsold quarters of malting barley he will take due note of it?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES (USE OF BRITISH SHIPS).

Sir REGINALD BLAKER: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether instructions will be issued to all representatives of His Majesty's Government proceeding abroad to travel whenever possible by British ships?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is already the rule to book passages in these cases by British ships whenever possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

MANCHESTER.

Sir J. NALL: 49.
asked the Minister of Health what is the present position regarding the housing schemes of the Corporation of Manchester; and whether his Department will continue to require the city council to build only the types of houses for which the greatest demand exists?

Sir H. YOUNG: The Corporation of Manchester have recently submitted pro-
posals for the building of over 2,000 houses, many of which are of a larger size than I think is required. The corporation have been asked to revise their proposals so that the bulk of the houses to be provided can be let at a lower rent than has been usual in the city for corporation houses, and I am in communication with them on the subject.

Mr. HICKS: May I now assume that the Manchester City Council are now permitted to proceed with their scheme providing they comply with the Ministry's regulations?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am in communication with the corporation on the subject at the present time, and the answer to that question will have to await the result of those communications.

Mr. HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unemployment among building trade workers in Manchester increased by over 660 within the last week as a result of this controversy between the Manchester City Council and the Ministry of Health; and will he speed up the negotiations?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am in touch with the various aspects of the question, and my information is not to the effect conveyed by the hon. Member.

Sir J. NALL: Is it not a fact that, had the corporation agreed to the Ministry's proposals some weeks ago, there need not have been any delay in the matter at all?

Sir H. YOUNG: There are aspects of the situation which will have to be considered.

Sir J. NALL: 50.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the proposals of the Corporation of Manchester to demolish a large area of property in the district of Hulme without any provision for alternative accommodation in the immediate vicinity; that previous schemes have resulted in only 25 per cent. of the dispossessed population moving to new housing estates, whilst 75 per cent. have remained in overcrowded conditions in the vicinity of the demolition area; and will he review existing legislation on this matter at an early date?

Sir H. YOUNG: I understand that the question of rehousing accommodation to be provided by the Corporation of Man-
Chester in connection with the proposed clearance referred to is still under consideration by the corporation. As regards the only other area which has been cleared by the corporation since the War, my information is that 75 per cent. of the persons displaced were in fact rehoused by the corporation. I do not think that any amendment of existing legislation on this matter is required.

Sir J. NALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether the figures stated in my question were not in fact published by the medical officer of Manchester, and will he check the discrepency between the figures supplied by the medical officer and those in his Department?

Sir H. YOUNG: Certainly; the figures I have given were not given without careful inquiry, but I will check them further in view of what the hon. Member has said.

SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACTS.

Major MILNER: 65.
asked the Minister of Health the number of local authorities which have suspended all advances under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts; and whether such action has received his sanction?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am aware of only two decisions of this kind by local authorities. My sanction is not required.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES.

Major MILNER: 56.
asked the Minister of Health the number of housing schemes which have been suspended or retarded following the suggestions to local authorities that all expenditure should be reduced to a minimum; and if he can state the number of persons who would have been employed had the various housing schemes been continued?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have been informed of only nine cases covering quite a small number of houses in which any definite action has been taken by the local authority to curtail or suspend their housing programme. The hon. Member will see from a copy of a circular which I am sending to him that he is under a misapprehension in stating that it has been suggested to local authorities that all expenditure should be reduced to a minimum irrespective of its character or purpose.

TENEMENT HOUSE, CAMBERWELL (RATES).

Viscount BORODALE: 60.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the hardship imposed upon the tenants of the London County Council at the Wakefield and Primrose tenement houses by the method by which the payment of rates is enforced, a protest against which led to disturbance on 12th November, he will inquire whether some preferable system could be adopted?

Sir H. YOUNG: The matter referred to is solely one for settlement between the London County Council and the Camberwell Borough Council, and I understand that it is under immediate discussion by these bodies.

Viscount BORODALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a meeting took place this morning between representatives of the London County Council and the Camberwell Borough Council, and that no arrangement was come to; and can he inquire into it and see that there is some agreement between these bodies so as to remove an undoubted cause of hardship on the tenants of these houses?

Sir H. YOUNG: The Noble Lord may rest assured that I am keeping in touch with the situation. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of expressing the very clear opinion that it is most desirable that some arrangement should be come to between these two bodies on this subject.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that other borough councils compound for rates, and will he use his influence with the Camberwell Council to follow that practice?

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member is now asking me to act, as it were, as a judge between the parties in the dispute, which I should hesitate to do. I must confine myself to stating that it is in the public interest that there should be an agreement between the authorities.

Mr. MAXTON: Is it correct to say that the Minister of Health has no right to intervene in a case where the houses have been erected by a public subsidy from his Department, and where rents are being charged which people cannot pay, although it is supposed to be a slum clearance scheme?

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member has asked me a wide question, very much wider than any question involved here. All I have said is that in this particular matter the differences, which do not raise the wide question to which the hon. Member has referred, are entirely a matter for adjustment between the two local authorities.

Mr. M AXTO N: If I understand the circumstances, dozens of the tenants of these slum clearance houses have been evicted—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making the question rather wide.

TWO-ROOM DWELLINGS.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: 63.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in a large number of instances families are living in one room, often a basement, and paying 17s. 6d. a week rent; and will he consider the desirability of abandoning certain restrictions in order that two-room dwellings may be erected at an economic rent of 5s. a week or less, seeing that this would be such an improvement as to justify the abandonment of the present principle of four or five-roomed houses or none at all?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am not clear what restrictions my hon. Friend has in mind, but I should be glad to consider any proposals which he may be able to make for reducing the cost of building as he suggests.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these people pay half their income away in rent, and that there is no shortage of houses but only a shortage of houses at rents which they can afford to pay?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am aware of those conditions, and, as the hon. Member has some suggestions in mind for a remedy, I should be most glad to receive them from him.

Viscount EDNAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a large number of four or five-room houses at a rental of 5s. or less, and does he not think it would be a wise policy for local authorities to acquire these private properties and put them into proper repair?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to know where they can get five-apartment houses at 5s. a week.

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 70 and 71.
asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he will bring in legislation to reduce rents of working-class houses by 50 per cent., seeing that, owing to the inability of many people to pay their rent, they are faced with being homeless;
(2) whether the Government propose to take action on the report on the Rent Restrictions Acts which recommended that all working-class houses be brought under control?

Sir H. YOUNG: As stated in reply to other questions relating to the future of the Rent Restrictions Acts and the possibility of amendments to those Acts, the Government will consider the matter in the light of the report of the Departmental Committee, which was recently issued. I do not think, however, that legislative provisions of the kind which the hon. Member has in mind would be practicable.

Mr. MAXTON: Can we hope to get the decision of the Government in the matter of the Rent Restrictions Act at an early date?

Sir H. YOUNG: Certainly, this matter will be dealt with as early as possible.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Minister of Health aware that there are nearly 200 people threatened with eviction in Glasgow alone, and that when we put a question to the Secretary of State for Scotland he said that the maintenance committee would look after them, and that we have made inquiries and such is not the case? That is why we are asking that he should take action here to safeguard these people from being thrown into the street. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech !"] We will have to act in another way if we cannot get an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATING AND VALUATION ACT.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: 53.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in the interests of national economy, he will postpone the re-valuation of properties for
rating purposes in accordance with the provisions of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925?

Sir H. YOUNG: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), on the 16th instant on this subject. I am not yet in a position to add to that reply.

Mr. LAMBERT: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received representations from the local authorities suggesting that this re-valuation should be dispensed with?

Sir H. YOUNG: I believe that some such representations have been received, and they will of course be taken into consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: 54.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the expense involved to local authorities in the review of county districts under the Local Government Act of 1929, he will suspend for a period the provisions of the Act dealing with the matter?

Sir H. YOUNG: I do not consider that it is in the national interest to postpone these reviews. One of their objects is to promote economy of administration, and a number of them have already been carried out or are far advanced.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that small local authorities may be involved in serious expense and hardship under this Act, especially in cases where opposition is raised?

Sir H. YOUNG: Attention has been given to representations that have been made to that effect; nevertheless, the merits of the matter are contained in the answer which I have given.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Is it not a fact that these representations are largely the ground on which we are asking for the suspension of the re-valuation?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am not sure whether I understand the inference of the hon. Members question. Nevertheless, I think that the point still holds that a great deal more would be lost than would be gained at the present time by any postponement of the nature referred to.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 57.
asked the Minister of Health the changes proposed in the relationship between doctors and their panel patients; whether any regulations covering those new relationships are to be laid upon the Table of this House and subject to the usual practice; and why the approved societies have not been consulted on these changes?

Sir H. YOUNG: Regulations making minor amendments in the Medical Benefit Regulations will shortly be published in draft and will be laid before Parliament in due course. I do not think it will be found that the regulations materially affect existing relations between insurance doctors and their patients; and the third part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. DAVIES: Is it not the custom of the Ministry of Health to consult the Consultative Committee of the Ministry in regard to health insurance administration, and why has not the committee been consulted this time?

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member is rather anticipating the event. If I may, I would ask him to await consideration by the House of the regulations, and then to see whether there is any necessity for the question which he now asks.

Mr. DAVIES: Is it not customary for the Consultative Committee to be consulted when regulations are being prepared and before they come into force?

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member is going very wide of his original question. I must content myself by replying that in all necessary cases, if any advantage is to be derived, it is customary to have such consultation.

Mr. HICKS: 65.
asked the Minister of Health the numbers of insured persons who each year since the introduction of the prolongation of insurance have been enabled to maintain their health insurance and pensions rights; and the total cost of this concession?

Sir H. YOUNG: The desired particulars could only be obtained by a detailed examination of the registers of every Approved Society and branch over the past 10 years, and the cost involved would, I fear, be prohibitive.

Mr. MAXTON: Did not the May Committee give an estimate of the amount to be paid by dropping the prolongation of insurance and how could that estimate have been made if these statistics were not available?

Sir H. YOUNG: Such figures as the May Committee gave were of a much more general character, and would not provide the detailed information which is asked for in this question.

Mr. LOGAN: 66.
asked the Minister of Health the estimated amount of money to be expended under the Prolongation of Insurance Act, 1930, during the current year; and what amount to the last convenient date has actually been expended?

Sir H. YOUNG: The cost to the Exchequer under the National Health Insurance (Prolongation of Insurance) Act, 1930, was estimated to lie between £80,000 and £130,000. No payments under the Act can be made until returns of the number of persons affected are received from approved societies after the end of the current year.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 67.
asked the Minister of Health the number of unemployed persons whose health insurance will terminate on the 31st December?

Sir H. YOUNG: I would refer the hon. Member to the memorandum explaining the proposed financial resolution on National Health Insurance (Prolongation of Insurance) which was presented as a Command Paper (No. 3966) on 16th November, where the figures are given.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 68.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will state the amount of surplus or deficit, as the case may be, at the last valuation of those societies whose membership is con fined to miners?

Sir H. YOUNG: The amount of surplus or deficiency of every approved society will be given in the appendix to the report of the Government Actuary on the third valuation, which will be published very shortly, and of which I will send the hon. Member a copy on publication.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. LOGAN: 61.
asked the Minister of Health if he is now prepared to make a
statement in the House and issue a circular to public assistance committees setting forth the legal rights of destitute applicants entitled to adequate relief who have been refused or who are receiving transitional or unemployment benefit?

Sir H. YOUNG: Public assistance authorities are aware from experience and through official circulars of their powers and duties in regard to applications for relief in circumstances 3uch as are referred to by the hon. Member, and further pronouncement on the subject would not in my opinion be useful at the present time.

Mr. LOGAN: Are we not entering into rather a new formula; is the right hon. Gentleman aware how this can be dealt with under the Poor Law, because the applicants are beginning to think that they are dealing with the Ministry of Health; and would the right hon. Gentleman kindly issue a circular in regard to the changed conditions showing how they can exercise their power?

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member's question leaves me in some doubt whether he has taken into consideration the Circular which has been already issued, copies of which I shall be happy to send him. He will find that it deals with the consideration which he raises.

Mr. LAWSON: If a public assistance committee decided to pay the full amount of benefit to disabled soldiers and made a rule to that effect, would the right hon. Gentleman object to it?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am sure that the hon. Member realises the extreme undesirability of answering hypothetical questions before they occur. When that case arises in concrete form I can deal with it.

Captain STRICKLAND: 62.
asked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that the disability pensions of ex-service men were granted in view of definite injury received incapacitating the recipients in competition for employment and that that handicap is recognised by the references contained in the circulars issued by the Ministers of Health and Labour dated 8th October and 11th November, he will seek power to have the duties laid down by the Order-in-Council so altered that it may be a definite instruction that these disability pensions shall not be taken inte
account in assessing relief either through the public assistance committees or other public bodies under the authority of the State?

Sir H. YOUNG: As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, local authorities have recently been reminded that the disability in respect of which the pension has been awarded may be such as to call for a greater measure of assistance than would normally be appropriate. It is essential that in assessing the needs of an applicant for relief regard should be had to all the circumstances of the individual case, and I could not adopt a suggestion which would arbitrarily remove from consideration all income of whatever amount, derived from a particular source.

Captain STRICKLAND: In the absence of definite instructions, is it the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that it is desirable that the question of assessment in the case of disablement pensions of ex-service men should be left to the sympathetic or unsympathetic consideration of varying public bodies; and may I ask to what body an appeal can be made?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question clearly goes beyond the scope of the original question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Sir A. POWNALL: 82.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to be able to announce the decision of the Government on the proposals contained in the report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service is now under consideration, but I am not able to say when decisions on the various recommendations contained in it can be announced.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL EXPENDITURE.

Mr. JOEL: 64.
asked the Minister of Health the present policy of the Government with regard to all borough extension, and to municipal outlay in general, apart from the continuance and normal extension of vital services?

Sir H. YOUNG: The policy of the Government with regard to municipal expenditure is set out in the Circular issued in September last of which I will send my hon. Friend a copy. With regard to borough extensions, I cannot prohibit a council from applying to Parliament, but I hope that no council will promote a Bill or a Provisional Order at the present time unless there are very special reasons for doing so. I do not consider that the review of county districts under the Local Government Act of 1929 should be delayed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TITHE RENTCHARGE.

Mr. BATEY: 94.
asked the Minister for Agriculture if he has considered the resolution of the North Yorkshire and South. Durham branch of the Farmers' Union on the subject of the abolition or remission of tithe rents; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have received no resolution relating to tithe rentoharge from the North Riding and South Durham branch of the National Farmers' Union.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE (IMPORTS).

Sir BASIL PETO: 99.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that during the past three years imports of furniture have averaged nearly £1,000,000, or nearly double the value of the imports for the years 1920–24, and that unemployment in the furniture trade now stands at 18.7 per cent.; and whether he proposes to take any steps to check this particular class of imports?

Major COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The facts concerning this trade will be reviewed in relation to the powers for which the Government is now asking Parliament, but I am at present unable to make any further statement on the matter.

Lord DUNGLASS: 101.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the amount of fruit in the form of fruit pulp imported into this country up to the end of October, 1931; and how the amount compares with the corresponding period of last year?

Major COLVILLE: The total quantity of fruit pulp in syrup imported into the United Kingdom during the first 10 months of 1931 was 4,846 cwts compared with 1,113 cwts. during the corresponding period of 1930. Fruit pulp of other kinds would be included under the general heading of fruit not liable to duty as such, preserved without sugar, other than canned or bottled. Under this head the imports during the first 10 months of 1931 were 647,801 cwts., as compared with 511,694 cwts. during the corresponding period of 1930, but how much of this was fruit pulp cannot be stated.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the preservative that is put into this fruit pulp is the cause of most of the indigestion in this country?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the business next week; and also at the same time whether, in view of the fact that the time is approaching for the Government to consider appointments to the British Broadcasting Corporation, he will afford the House an opportunity of considering the question of broadcasting before the appointments are made?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will take the second question first. The point which has now been put to me is not quite the question which was to be answered. As I had the question, it was as to whether an opportunity would be given to consider the appointments, and I am afraid that my answer is based upon that, and not upon the question of a discussion about broadcasting before the appointments are made. If my right hon. Friend would like me to answer the question I have, I shall be very glad to do so.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry that, whoever conveyed the question to the right hon. Gentleman, did not convey it fully. What we are asking for is that, before the appointments are made, there should be a discussion in this House on broadcasting.

The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be good enough to repeat that question on Monday, because it is not the question to which I have an
answer. The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday: Expiring Laws Bill, Committee and Third Reading; Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill, Second Reading and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Tuesday: Statute of Westminster Bill, remaining stages.
Wednesday: Indian Pay (Temporary Abatements) Bill, Second Reading; National Health Insurance (Prolongation of Insurance) Bill, Second Reading; Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill, remaining stages.
With the consent of the House, I will announce the business for Thursday and Friday later on, but on any day, if time permits, other Orders will be taken.
It might be for the guidance and the convenience of the House if I announce certain arrangements which I understand have been made through the usual channels. I understand that, as a result of conversations through the usual channels to-day, there is an arrangement that the Committee stage of the National Health Insurance (Prolongation of Insurance) Money Resolution should be passed to-day after the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Bill has been disposed of, and that the Report stage should be taken to-morrow so that the Bill may be printed and available to Members.
In regard to to-morrow, it is the intention of the Government to table Motion to-morrow to provide that Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House at the conclusion of business unless he shall have previously reported consent to the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Bill. As a matter of fact, we hope that that is only a precautionary measure, and we are not doing it because we think that it will be required.

Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS: Will there be any opportunity of discussing the appointments to the British Broadcasting Corporation before they are made?

The PRIME MINISTER: That was the question which I understood I had to answer and my answer would be in the negative. The appointments are made by an Order-in-Council, and it would be both inconvenient and impracticable to
discuss names in the way they would be discussed if the question was brought before the House of Commons.

Mr. MORRIS: Will there be no opportunity, not for the purpose of discussing the names, but the question of representation? At the present moment there is no Welsh representative on this Board at all, and the question of Welsh broadcasting has raised considerable difficulty in the past. Will the Prime Minister give an opportunity for discussing broadcasting?

The PRIME MINISTER: That question is dealt with by divisional committees. All those things are controlled by the divisional organisations, and upon the Welsh Divisional Council I think there is a very ample representation of Welshmen.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is in the public interest that this House should have no control whatsoever over the British Broadcasting Corporation?

Mr. LANSBURY: With regard to the National Health (Prolongation of Insurance) Bill, we very much want to help that Bill through. With regard to broadcasting, the only thing that we are anxious about is to discuss the whole question of broadcasting, without reference to the names of any particular people, and we thought that the best time to do that would be before these new appointments were made.

The PRIME MINISTER: As I have said, if my right hon. Friend will put that question to me on Monday, I shall be very glad to answer it. I would remind him now, however, that that is just the sort of question that can be discussed most appropriately on the Motion for Adjournment.

Mr. MORRIS: With regard to Welsh broadcasting, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the advisory regional representation to which he has referred in no way meets the case?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not want to pursue that matter in this casual way. If my hon. Friend would like a considered answer on that point, perhaps he would be good enough to put a question on the Paper?

Mr. MAXTON: With regard to the business for the week, is it the view of the Government that this Session will be extended to a somewhat later date than was originally anticipated by the Government; and, if we are going to have a more extended Session than was originally contemplated, would it be possible for the Government to provide a day for the discussion of unemployment?

The PRIME MINISTER: I imagine that my hon. Friend has his Prayers in mind—

Mr. BUCHANAN: Unemployment policy.

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it is possible. Our intention regarding the length of the Session has not been changed. I hope that the House will rise at a reasonable time, so as to enable us to get on with very important administrative work.

Orders of the Day — ABNORMAL IMPORTATIONS (CUSTOMS DUTIES) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Power of Board of Trade to apply Act.)

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, after the word "description," to insert the words:
(other than articles to be used as raw materials in industry in the United Kingdom).
We believe that it is necessary to make this distinction between articles that are wholly manufactured and are imported in a finished state for use, and such articles as may be imported for the purpose of being worked up in the United Kingdom and upon which employment for workpeople is to be provided before the manufactured article reaches its market and the hands of the consumer. We find, in Class III of the Imports and Exports List, an immense variety of articles, divided for convenience into groups and related to the several branches of our home industries. I find from the statistical returns of trade and commerce that returns are given for articles described by a variety of terms, showing the quantity and value of each class of import. A glance over the list shows how large a part of the total amount spent on these imports represents expenditure on raw materials for industries of all kinds at home. I notice that these Class III imports in 1929 ran to a total value of £278,000,000. In 1930 the figure was slightly less, namely, £262,000,000. The figure for the first 10 months of 1931 stands at the, comparatively speaking, very low total of £215,000,000. We find that the whole class is divided into groups, A, B and so on up to the letter T, the articles dealt with in the various groups being as follows:

Group A: Coke and manufactured fuel.
Group B: Pottery, glass, etc., including various articles used in building and furnishing.
Group C: Iron and steel and manufactures thereof.

In this group we find all kinds of semi-manufactured products in the rough state, from pig iron to bars, billets and rough forgings to be used in further manufacturing processes in our works.

Group D: Non-ferrous metals.
Group E: Cutlery.
Group F: Electrical goods and apparatus.
Group G: Machinery, mostly finished.
Group H: Manufactures of wood and timber.
Group I: Cotton yarns.
Group J: Woollen and worsted yarns.
Group K: Silk and silk manufactures.
Group L: Manufactures of other textile materials.
Group M: Apparel.
Group N: Chemicals, drugs, dyes and colours.
Group O: Oils and fats.
Group P: Leather and manufactures thereof.
Group Q: Paper.
Group R: Vehicles.
Group S: Rubber.
Group T: Miscellaneous goods.

4.0 p.m.
Almost all kinds of semi-manufactured goods and raw materials are represented in these categories—goods vitally necessary to British industries, goods which cannot 'be produced at home; and all these goods in their aggregate and in their separate sense come in under the title of raw materials. The term "raw material" is one which has often figured in these controversies. I read, in a speech which the right hon. Gentleman will remember very well, be cause it was delivered by himself not more than four or five months ago, these words, which are full of warning, full of challenge, and full of defiance to those with whom he was then in political controversy:
'What is going to happen to my raw materials?' If you go down the list of categories that are provided in the Board of Trade returns you can ask that question over and over again about things so diverse as oil and resin, immense quantities of which are used in this country; about non-ferrous metals and all intermediate stages of non-ferrous metals on their way to final manufacture; about the 30 or 40 different categories of iron and steel which came under the review of the Balfour Committee last year, the consideration of which filled an entire volume in that Report; about apparel, leather and leather goods, woollen and worsted yarns, and so on. And this list, so diverse, actually contains the essential raw materials of a great many industries. Worsted yarn, for example, is a finished product, but for a man who wishes to weave it into his fabrics it is a raw
material. The finished product of the tanner is the raw material for Northampton and the boot trade. And so you could go on through all these articles. What is or is not raw material becomes of prime importance when framing a tariff.
That is the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, who believed that he was right when he uttered that statement in June last. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
Long before Mr. Chamberlain presides, over the Board of Trade or the Exchequer, out of fairness to industry and those engaged in industry and commerce he ought to say definitely whether their raw material is or is not to be subject to import duties.
The right hon. Gentleman has not done the thing that he expected Mr. Chamberlain to do if Mr. Chamberlain occupied the right hon. Gentleman's present position. He went on to argue that if the price of raw material is raised, the ultimate price of the finished product will be increased, that it will be too high for the foreign market and may mean ruin to manufacturers and exporters in this country. He used these words:
If you turn the attention of the heads of the iron and steel industry from their own laboratories and works into the Lobbies of the House of Commons, you will destroy their character and divert their intelligence from the real problems, and there will then be no permanent recovery for iron and steel in any part of England, Scotland or Wales.
The right hon. Gentleman has now seen the iron and steel industry turn here, and direct their intelligence to this Bill. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Mr. L. Jones) last night made a speech, very well delivered, in which he spoke as one of the most important officials of the South Wales Siemen Steel Association. I believe he is the secretary of that association. He gave us some details of the condition, which, he said, justified his support of this Bill and of protection for his industry. I have no time to go into other industries this afternoon, but I do know something about the iron and steel industry and the tin-plate industry with which he is himself connected, but I represent a very large number of steel smelters and tin-plate workers. He may represent the employers,, but I represent the workpeople in the steel industry and tin-plate industry in a part of the world where we both reside. I want to say something about that industry. The hon. Member gave us figures to show that wages in Continental countries were very
much lower, and were the main cause of lower Continental prices. He did not say that we had always imported large quantities of foreign steel. In 1913, we imported over 2,000,000 tons, and in 10 months of 1931 the imports of iron and steel have been 200,000 tons lower than in 1929, and lower than they were in 1913, when the steel industry in this country was prosperous, and there was no general complaint about it.
The hon. Member did not say that the main bulk of the steel imported at the present time is of a quality no longer manufactured in this country. In South Wales we ceased manufacturing any Bessemer steel 25 or 30 years ago. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) and two other Midland gentlemen were the first to manufacture Bessemer steel in South Wales. I can remember the time when that was done, and when the Siemen industry displaced the Bessemer industry to the absolute extinction of the Bessemer process in all parts of the country. The hon. Gentleman did not say that the Bessemer steel imported into South Wales was steel which can be manufactured from 10s. to 15s. a ton cheaper than the steel manufactured under the Siemen process. He did not say that we gave up making this cheaper steel because the quality was not so good, but that we have always thought it convenient in South Wales, the Midlands and other parts of the country to use Bessemer steel, because it serves the manufacture of galvanised plates and tin-plates for the markets of the world. This cheaper semi-raw Bessemer steel has enabled the South Wales tin-plate industry to retain its exports, and has enabled the galvanised industry to retain, and, indeed, add to its production.
These are the only prosperous industries in our part of the world at the present time. They are the only industries which give full employment to the workpeople, and where the best wages have been obtained. These industries have been retained, not directly because of the presence of cheap foreign steel on the market, but because there is the pressure of the cheaper foreign steel against the home producer of steel when he is disposed to raise his price, and the supply of steel for these industries has been maintained at a fair commercial level because there is this importation of
foreign steel. Let me remind the Committee that while there appears to be a disadvantage in having to import steel, our galvanised steel industry is a most prosperous export industry. At present we export more galvanised sheets than all the rest of the world put together. It is 2½ times greater in volume than the exports of the United States, Germany, France, Belgium and Luxemburg combined. Our production of black-plate and tin-plate is higher than ever before. These are the only industries, as I have said, which are prosperous in our part of the world, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has in mind any proposal, whether now or during the next six months, when his Act will be operative, of preventing these industries from being supplied with the kind of steel that may be manufactured abroad, and the kind of steel which is being supplied at a price to enable this trade to retain and extend its markets all over the world—whether he is going to jeopardise the employment of the men in the tin-plate industry and the galvanised industry, because the Siemen Steel Association has sent its general secretary to look after its own sectional interest? We want to know whether the interests of the Steel Association are to stand before the interests of the general community in the town which the hon. Gentleman and I both represent.
The same argument that is applied to the steel trade can be applied by Members who have information of our other national industries. One on this side can talk with authority on the textile industry, another on the silk industry, and so on. The same argument applies to all our industries, because in the list to which I have referred there is opportunity for all industries to give employment to millions of our workpeople, and it is very important that we should not jeopardise the employment of those people by cutting off the supply of raw materials. There is a small thing, which is hardly worth referring to in a Debate of this kind, but I was told yesterday that a firm making leather bags was compelled to look abroad for the metal frames required in the manufacture of those bags, because there are no firms in this country providing the metal frames.

Mr. GIBSON: May I inform the hon. Gentleman that that is not so?

Mr. GRENFELL: I was told that it was the case, and that there is a danger that these people may have to pay a duty for the leather which is the raw material of their industry, and, in addition, 100 per cent. or some such figure for the goods imported from abroad, even if there is no firm in this country prepared to undertake the manufacture of that class of goods.

Mr. MABANE: May I say, as an expert on this subject, that that is not so? There are in this country firms which manufacture frames for ladies' handbags.

Mr. GRENFELL: I was told about this yesterday, and have referred to it in passing. I ask the Committee, in considering the merits of this Amendment, to consider the real interests of a large number of people in this country who depend for their livelihood to-day and in the years to come upon the maintenance of existing trade and markets. I hope that the Committee will not support the Minister if he opposes this Amendment. I would like very much to convince him, but I am afraid that he has gone back on all his earlier professions, and has given a pledge to take this plunge into an unknown condition of things. I am afraid that he is not to be reasoned with to-day, but I will ask the Committee and those people who represent the workpeople, as I do, to consider their interests. I have no interests to serve, except the people who have trusted me and expect me to put forward arguments on their behalf. I know that they resent very much the liberties taken by the Government with their prospect of employment. I ask the Committee to-day to support us in this Amendment, and to support the general interest of British industry, dependent as it is upon raw material from all parts of the world.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I support the Amendment, and, in doing so, I want to correct one statement that my hon. Friend made, as I do not want the President of the Board of Trade to say that we do not know our ease. My hon. Friend said that we have ceased to produce Bessemer steel for 25 years. The fact is that we have been producing Bessemer steel in Ebbw Vale and Dowlais up to, say, two or two and a-half years ago.
But it was not so much for the production of tin-plates and sheets as for rails and other materials. I also want to put myself right with the President of the Board of Trade on another matter. I stated the day before yesterday that the cost of producing a ton of steel, from the beginning to the finished bar, averaged something like 10s. a ton. What I had in mind when I made the statement was that this was Bessemer steel that was being produced in this country, and the figure I gave will be supported by the hon. Member for East Leyton (Sir F. Mills) who spoke on the Address and who is a manufacturer of steel. I did not intend that the House should think that the steel that we produce in South Wales for the purpose of producing our best charcoal plates costs 10s. per ton. It may be 16s. per ton. But it did not affect my argument in any way. If these people were able to import their Bessemer steel bars at £3 per ton, we were still at a disadvantage and were handicapped to the extent of 25s. per ton.
After making that explanation, I want the President of the Board of Trade to consider the very serious aspect of our trade put forward by my hon. Friend. My executive is meeting in London this week to review the position of the business. They have been sitting for two days, and discussing a report submitted by the head office on the state of the trade as a whole, as it affects the whole of our members and not only one section. They are amazed to think that a business man like the right hon. Gentleman, who understands everything about ships, shipping plates, pig iron, and the cost of production in all these industries, should try to rush an important question like this through the House of Commons in two and a-half days.
It is a very serioue matter. In the iron and steel trade you have different stages. You import iron ore from Spain and elsewhere. That is the raw material of the blast furnace men. The pig iron that they produce is the raw material of the Bessemer trade and the crucible trade. Then they produce their article, and their finished article will be the raw material of other trades. Billets, for instance, are the raw material for producing wire and various other articles. Steel bare are the raw material of the
galvanised trade and the tin plate trade and other sections. I think I can fairly claim that, if there is one society in the country that is up to date, it is my society. We have a special statistical department which collects statistics not only from our Board of Trade but from all the producing countries on the Continent and America. We can produce any statistics that are required so far as these trades are concerned. Talking of production, the report says:
The number of blast furnace men has further declined during the quarter ended September. Only 62 furnaces have been in operation as against 76 at the end of June.
That means that there is a decline in so far as producing pig iron is concerned in the blast furnace trade.
The figure of 62 is made up as follows: Derby, Leicester, Notts and Northants, 21; parts of Lancashire and Yorkshire, 4; Lincolnshire, 6; the North-East Coast, 18; Scotland, 1; Staffordshire, Shropshire, Worcester, Warwick, 6; South Wales and Monmouthshire, 1; and the West Coast, 5.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary said that, so far as Empire trade was concerned, they were going to give 100 per cent. Is that so?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): indicated assent.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: May I ask, further, if India is included in the Empire?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: indicated assent.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: That will help me with my point. In Scotland there is only one blast furnace working, and the reason is that India is able to produce pig iron and sell it in Scotland cheaper than Scotland can produce it. What arises from that? I cannot do better than put it in the form of a story that I heard at our executive meeting to-day. We have a blast furnace man on the executive who is idle as the result of this Indian pig iron being imported into Scotland, but his son is working in the steel plate trade. The father went to draw his unemployment benefit, and on coming outside he met a mate. They looked at the 10 per cent. reduction and began discussing this question like two professors. One said to the other, "Is not the country in a hell of a hole, and look what Runciman is going to do. I am getting 23s. 3d. a week. I am idle,
but my son, making steel plates for shipbuilding purposes, is earning £4. Now, if they are going to raise the price of pig iron, the shipowners will not want to buy the steel plates. They will be too high, and as a result Runciman is not only going to put me out of employment but my son as well." I am putting that point to show the seriousness of what is going to happen. It may be all right discussing it with theorists sitting there. We know the blunders they have made in the past. I am speaking now of something that really affects our people from making steel down to making the finished product, the sheet and the tinplate.
4.30 p.m.
May I give one illustration. Let us take the imports and exports of these commodities. In the import list that we have here—I am sure it will be in the statistics of the Board of Trade—we import pig iron, iron bars, girders, beams and joists, steel bars, plates and sheets, tubes, rails, sleepers and fish plates, tyres and axles, railway wheels and axles, wire manufactures and other items. The same articles are exported as well as imported. They are exported because they are the finished article of that particular trade. But the articles imported are the raw material of some other trades that we have connected with the steel tinplate and sheet trade and if you look up the imports and exports, from 1913, if you like, you will find that they practically balance each year. That is, we sometimes export more than we import, and sometimes import more than we export. It is according to the demand and the supply. I will give an illustration to show the President of the Board of Trade the injury which he is going to do to the finishing trade. I think that the Member for West Swansea (Mr. L. Jones) will agree with mo that the price of the Bessemer steel imported into Swansea Dock is something like £3 a ton. I am giving round figures. It is manufactured into tinplates, and, taking the quotation to-day, the price of a box of tinplates is something like 15s. That means that if we get 20 boxes out of a ton of steel—we sometimes get more and sometimes less—we get for that ton of steel, after manufacturing it into tin-plates, £15. This £15 worth of tin-plates is exported to the very country
from which we buy the steel bars. Therefore, in the transaction we have paid £3 for the steel, and we have sent them £15 worth of tinplate, making £12 on the deal.

Mr. LEWIS JONES: Would the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Griffiths) explain for the benefit of the House that when he talks of £15 for making tin-plates to be exported from this country a large percentage of the amount is for the tin used in tinning the plates?

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I am simply giving an account of what is happening. We buy the raw material for £3 a ton and we manufacture it into tin-plates. I do not wish to go into the cost of grease and tin and coal or any of those details, otherwise I should detain the Committee longer than I intend. I am pointing out that in buying this steel and manufacturing it into tin-plates we make £12 on the deal, thus showing that it is an advantage to the country. I am discussing the matter from the standpoint of the country and showing that it is an advantage that the raw material should be imported into Swansea. I would remind the President of the Board of Trade that this affects his trade as well. He would rather see his ships carrying goods to and fro than remaining idle. He will see that as far as the raw material for the finished article in all these sections of the trade is concerned it is very important. I therefore appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to consider the question seriously and to accept the Amendment.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My right hon. Friend will be grateful to hon. Members responsible for the Amendment for calling his attention to many important matters which he will have to bear in mind in the exercise of this power, but, if I may be permitted to say so, the object of this Bill is not to injure or impede any British industry, but to help and assist as many British industries as possible. That is why we have selected out of all the classes in the Import and Export List that class which does not deal primarily with raw materials but only with articles manufactured or mainly manufactured. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in dealing with this matter last night, made what I hope will be con-
sidered a satisfactory explanation to this House, particularly in view of the fact that he is a recognised authority on matters of trade and industry. He said:
I can assure the House that they will not be abused, because we are just as much alive to the delicacy of British industry and commerce as any hon Gentleman opposite. We know how narrow the margins are by which prosperity is retained. We are well aware of the fact that you must not ruin the bootmaker by putting an abnormal price on boot leather."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1931; cols. 978 and 979, Vol. 259.]
In that statement my right hon. Friend gives a clear indication of the principles which will guide him in the administration of this Measure, and I hope that in view of that declaration my hon. Friends opposite who have so insistently argued their Amendment will now withdraw it.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: The answer we have just received from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade makes things rather more difficult than they were before. His answer is to some extent satisfactory to us, but it cannot be satisfactory to us and satisfactory to some of his hon. Friends behind him at the same time. Yesterday an hon. Member making his maiden speech to which reference has been made, was delighted at the powers for which the right hon. Gentleman is now asking, because he expected that those powers would be exercised in the direction of protecting the industry in which he himself is interested. Now we are to assume from the reply we have just received that it is not the intention of the President of the Board of Trade to restrict the importation of raw material, a rise in the price of which might disadvantageously affect the export trade. My authority is not any of my right hon. or hon. Friends on this side of the House. My authority is the President of the Board of Trade himself. He said when the crisis was impending that it would be disastrous in the extreme that we should in particular restrict the importation of steel bars and billets. It was in a speech to which very frequent reference has been made, and I am not quoting it merely for the purpose of making a debating point.
I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman in this House with very great
respect, and, as the hon. Member has pointed out, his observations upon fiscal policy have been treated throughout Great Britain and the world with very great respect indeed, and I do not think that, despite the fact that he now finds himself in strange company, his reputation for veracity and exact information has been reduced at all. It may he, of course, if he remains there very long, but I do not think that at the moment his reputation has fallen at all. He said, when referring to our export trade—and the right hon. Gentleman, when he has addressed this House, has stressed one point, and one point almost entirely, in his arguments for Free Trade—that interference with our fiscal policy, any attempt at all to restrict the importation of raw materials into this land, might gravely impair the export trade. That argument is as sound to-day as ever it was.
I understand that it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to restrict the purchases of this country abroad so far as possible in order to ease the strain upon sterling. I am sure that he will agree with me that the strain upon sterling is not going to be eased if, in reducing our purchases abroad, it reduces our sales abroad. If it is correct to say, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that to increase the price of raw material in any way will make it very difficult for the purchase of the raw material needed in the export trades to enable them to sell abroad, then to the extent that he reduces our sales abroad he increases the strain upon sterling which he has attempted to ease by reducing our purchases. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the argument is not only relevant to what he has said in this House on previous occasions but very relevant indeed to the present intention of the Bill. I therefore ask him if he will be good enough when he replies, if he intends to reply to this portion of the Debate, to give the Committee and the country some assurance as to the extent to which he intends to exercise the powers for which he is now asking. I am not putting an academic point nor am I indeed arguing merely for the sake of filling up the time.
The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that he will take these very wide powers, he will have them at the
Board of Trade, and that they will hang in suspense. They will hang there ready to pounce upon any imports into this country which are covered by the Bill. As soon as these powers are obtained purchasers of raw materials in the country will have their eyes upon their rivals. If "A" has already purchased a large bulk of raw materials and has it in stock and "B" has not done so, and they are both competitors in the same market, then in order that "B" may be able to secure the same competitive advantages as "A," he will rush into the market to purchase raw material before the President of the Board of Trade restricts the importation. Therefore, the first effect of these powers, if they are not going to be used for every article in the list in so far as the articles in the list enter into the production of any other article, will be to cause an increase in the importation of those articles. The difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman will be increased. What then will become of the assurances of the Parliamentary Secretary that it is not the intention of the President of the Board of Trade to exercise his powers in such away as to impair our industries? What becomes of his contention? If he does not immediately proceed to exercise the powers to restrict the importation, which has been increased because he has the powers, then he will increase the strain upon sterling. His difficulties will increase. The right hon. Gentleman is asking for powers that will only embarrass him. Are we to understand that we are not hearing the real reason as to why assurances are not being given here? What is the reason? If the right hon. Gentleman got up at that Box and told us in what direction he intends to exercise his powers, what would occur? The hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) would immediately come along and accuse him of not being a true convert to Protection but of being still a Free Trader and of simply bluffing the House for six months by obtaining powers which he did not intend to exercise.
The hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. L. Jones), representing Siemens' Marketing Association, I understand, whose speech was printed in a South Wales journal to-day with hilarity, said
that all the steel producers of South Wales would believe that their saviour is at hand and that at last Ebbw Vale is to have assistance, because the price of imported steel is going to be raised to a point where Ebbw Vale will be able to produce steel again. I see the hon. Baronet who was managing director of that company for many years smiling. At last all those derelict blast furnaces were to be put in hand. It is known that they will not be able to be put in hand for three of six months, but in the meantime the price of steel will soar upwards and the President of the Board of Trade will find himself plagued by deputations from steel consumers, asking that for Heaven's sake he should take the importation duties away. Not only will he have prevented steel coming in, but the blast furnaces will not be able to produce. The right hon. Gentleman will get industry in this country into serious difficulties. This is a further exemplification of the dictum that he has laid down in this House on more than one occasion that, unless this House, whenever it interferes in industry or commerce, interferes on the basis of a known plan, interferes root and branch and assumes entire economic responsibility, any attempt to interfere with it at all must fall short of that ambitious plan and is bound to make the situation worse than it was found.
What is the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty? He is bound to keep industry in suspense in order to keep the Tory party in suspense. To reassure industry, he has to offend his Tory colleagues. To reassure steel consumers and the raw material consumers as to their supplies, he has to come here and say that he does not intend to interfere with their purchases, because, if he did that, there would be immediate rebellion in the House of Commons among his Tory colleagues. In order to try to secure docility among his Tory colleagues he has to introduce uncertainty and discord into commerce and industry. That is what occurs to commerce and industry when the right hon. Gentleman applies his mind, not to the reorganisation of British industry and commerce, but to the gerrymandering of a Parliamentary majority. I would urge upon the House the seriousness of that position. On the other hand, if, having obtained his
powers, the right hon. Gentleman finds himself in the position of having to exercise them all immediately, because the very possession of them increases imports, he will have to take action which he must know he ought not to take precipitately and without examination of the facts in each case. I would therefore ask him in all seriousness that, before the end of this Debate, to give the House some indication of the articles upon which he intends to exercise these powers. Unless he does so, a very serious situation will arise, once those powers are exercised.
I would like to refer to another point. We are not engaged in dealing with a large industrial plan. We are not seeing that intelligent and scientific Safeguarding of which so much has been said in recent years, but merely a piece of hurried legislation, presumably to deal with a serious run upon sterling, and an attempt to balance our purchases abroad with our sales abroad in order to prevent inflation and the pound from falling. In this Debate, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are naturally anxious not to enter into too much detail, and have not given any comparison between the imports of 1931 and the imports for 1929 and 1930.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is forgetting the Amendment.

Mr. BEVAN: I am not leaving the Amendment, Sir. I am returning to it immediately. I merely attempted to reinforce my argument by a suggestion to the President of the Board of Trade, that, the intention of the Bill being to ease the run upon sterling, immediately there is a rise in the price-level as a consequence of import duties, inflation starts and cannot be stopped. A suggestion has been made, I do not knew with what truth and substance, that the philosophy of the circulation of commodities can be extended to a point to carry a higher price-level in this country, without involving a resort to any increase in the note issue. Immediately the price-level is raised, as a consequence of the restriction of imports, the advantage that exporters are now able to enjoy in the difference in the value of sterling between at home and abroad, will largely be lost.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is certainly not speaking to the Amendment. I must ask him to do so at once.

Mr. BEVAN: I would like to point out, Sir, that the Amendment which is now being moved, proposes to eliminate from the Bill the right to restrict the import of any article coming into this country which may be used as a raw material in industry. I should imagine that it is perfectly relevant and proper for me to argue that an attempt to restrict the raw materials will have the effect of increasing the price of a raw material to the industries consuming it, that that increased price must be passed on in the total price of the product and the price-level in the industry raised accordingly. Surely, I am entitled to argue therefore as to what is going to be the effect upon currency and sterling of the higher internal price-level. If I am not allowed to point out to the House of Commons the consequences of restricting the importation of raw materials, then the whole of our Amendment is minimised, and reduced to such a narrow level that we are wholly unable to give any adequate reasons for it.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member certainly may refer to those particular matters, but when he goes on to discuss a theoretical point of view, entirely apart from the question of raw materials or otherwise, he is getting away from the Amendment.

Mr. BEVAN: I aim not making that the principal gravamen of my charge, but I am simply saying that the rise in the price-level is a logical and inevitable consequence of the restriction of the importation of raw materials, and that that is the intention of the President of the Board of Trade. The intention is that the price-level should be raised, as he himself would point out. A rise in the price-level, due entirely to this action of his may start that spiral movement to which authorities have referred and against which they have warned this country. I will leave that point, hoping that some other hon. Gentleman in the course of the Debate will be able to throw additional light upon it.
May I be allowed to say just one more thing in conclusion? Students of our fiscal policy, and of our commercial rela-
tions with other countries, have said, and there is a large measure of agreement with them, that it is absolutely necessary that our foreign trade should be established upon some regularised basis. I have argued from these benches, and many of my hon. Friends have done so too, that to allow the organisation in industry and commerce on the principle of Free Trade is very undesirable, because competition introduces into industry and commerce elements which are bound to make for confusion. It has been recognised, and by no one more than the President of the Board of Trade, that it is impossible for us to increase our exports and reduce our imports at one and the same time, although the right hon. Gentleman is hoping to accomplish that in his Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting definitely beyond the Amendment. He is getting on to the general question of Free Trade or otherwise.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. BEVAN: I do not wish to pursue that. I have merely pointed out that if I have to accept the principle of the right hon. Gentleman's later Amendment which covers everything in Class III, it covers any raw material in industry. I will leave that point. If there is to be a division of labour between ourselves and the rest of the world, in that division of labour we will have to allow the rest of the world a place. There is no better place we can allow them than that they should be able to sell to us those products in which the least amount of human skill is involved. We have only one advantage left in the world market, and that is that we have a highly skilled artisan population. It will be generally true to say that if one were to make a general distinction as between what is a raw material and what is a finished article, one would say that a finished article has a higher proportion of skilled labour contained in it than the raw material. I see the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I submit that there are "raw material" articles where there is a higher proportion of skill than is obtained in finished articles. To make a generalisation which will be applicable to wide ranges of industry, I would say that, as a general rule, a finished product will contain a higher measure of labour and intensity of
skill than a raw material. I suggest that if we try to maintain a division of labour between ourselves and the rest of the world, and not merely carry on a fiscal war, we should allow the rest of the world to send us its raw material. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should try as far as possible to leave the rest of the world the opportunity to send to us the raw materials in which very little skill has been used, in order that we might be able to work upon those materials and sell to the rest of the world the finished products that we are more capable of supplying. The right hon. Gentleman is asking for very serious powers of interference in commerce and industry and I suggest that it is due to this House, and to those engaged in trade and commerce, that he should now give us some indication of the direction in which he is going to use these powers and not leave the commerce of this country at the mercy of the veto of the Board of Trade and thus increase the difficulties which I am sure he is most anxious to avoid.

Mr. GIBSON: The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) who moved this Amendment says that if this Bill becomes law there is no hope of any recovery for the iron and steel industry. I have sufficient faith in the President of the Board of Trade, and I am perfectly satisfied that hon. Members of the Committee have sufficient faith in the right hon. Gentleman, to believe that both operatives and employers will get a square deal. The hon. Member also referred to leather bags manufactured on the continent, but, unfortunately, in this matter he was delving into an aspect of the trade with which he was not au fait. At the Leather Sellers Hall the other week there was exhibited a marvellous arrangement of bags and on that occasion Mr. F. J. Marquis, who is the head of the retail distributors of the country and Chairman of Lewis, Limited, of Manchester and Liverpool, said that for the next six months his stores would only sell British made bags made with British leather. Most of the metal fittings used in the manufacture of bags are British made. I am perfectly satisfied that when this Bill becomes law we need not fear that there will be any undue inflation
of prices in this country. Neither this Government nor any other Government, next year or in the future, will ever tolerate again an unreasonable inflation of the price of commodities in this country.
My own industry was specifically mentioned yesterday by the late Solicitor-General and the President of the Board of Trade—the leather industry. As far as I am personally concerned, as a manufacturer, what I want is not an inflated price for my goods but that I should be able to get a larger turnover; I will get my profit from that. Every business man desires this, and I am prepared to give an undertaking that, apart from any increase in the cost of labour or raw material, if I can increase my turnover I will not increase the selling price of my articles for five years. I am only one of many in industry who does not look for inflated prices; what we want is an increased turnover. The woollen industry in the West Riding of Yorkshire is being killed because the enormous importation of woollen goods has not enabled them to get any turnover. I am satisfied that the Government will not accept the Amendment, it cuts clean across the Bill. If it was accepted the Bill might just as well be dropped.
With regard to the woollen industry, whilst it is undoubtedly the raw material of the tailor and clothier no one can for a moment justify the large importation of woollen goods from the Continent during the past few years. There are firms in London who have been taking the whole of the produce of certain mills in Italy, most of whose output has been subsidised by the Italian Government. These goods have been sold in this country below the cost of production, and the loss has been made good by subsidies by the Italian Government. I want the President of the Board of Trade to pay attention to such matters. A week ago I saw a letter addressed to a business man in my own division in which an importer in London definitely stated that one of his friends had placed an order on the continent for 1,000 pieces of cloth on condition that they were delivered in this country before 10th November, in order to forestall any duty which may be imposed by this country.
A woollen manufacturer in Leeds told me only on Monday of this week that
he had a contract with a firm in London, which has been held up during the past week because the firm in London had had a visit from a German woollen manufacturer. The firm offered the German manufacturer an order for 2,000 pieces of cloth on the condition that they were delivered by a certain date, to forestall any tariff which may be imposed by this country, and were delivered at a certain price. The German telephoned to his firm, and to the workers' trade union, and said that if they were prepared to take a reduction of 10 per cent. in their wages—the German manufacturer was willing to stand his share of the reduction—they could get the order. They got that order; and those goods are coming into this country. It passes my comprehension as a business man how hon. Members opposite, who no doubt are sincere, can year after year sit on those benches always under the impression that the employer is out to exploit the workman, instead of realising that they should work hand in hand with each other.
There is one point I should like to mention in connection with my own industry. In the beginning of the week the President of the Board of Trade referred to box calf tanned leather, and speaking last night, he said that:
We are well aware of the fact that you must not ruin the bootmaker by putting an abnormal price on boot leather. Those are the simple things which we learned in the schoolroom."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1931; col. 979, Vol. 259.]
The late Solicitor-General has attained high rank in the legal profession but, unfortunately, he sometimes delves into matters which he does not understand, and it was evident to anyone connected with the leather industry that last night he was simply relating what he had been told, not what he knew, when he made the following statement:
After to-morrow, or after the end of this week, leather will be subject at a moment's notice to a tax by the right hon. Gentleman without any merchant or manufacturer knowing it until he sees it in the paper in the morning. How is he in that state of affairs to arrange for the manufacture and sale of his boots at a fixed price in foreign markets? It is absolutely impossible. It will throttle his trade, because he will be afraid to enter into any forward contracts or sales not knowing where he is to be as regards his raw material."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1931; col. 970, Vol. 259.]
As a matter of fact, the great pity is that this Bill was not introduced months ago.

The CHAIRMAN: I have been trying to find out how the hon. Member is going to associate his argument with the Amendment before the Committee, which deals with articles used as the raw material in industry in the United Kingdom?

Mr. GIBSON: I will come to that point straight away. It has been said that articles which are the finished material for one industry are the raw material for another; and one industry that has been mentioned is the leather industry. That is why I am dealing with this matter. The late Solicitor-General last night said that leather, whilst being a manufactured article, was the raw material of the boot manufacturer, and that this Bill would ruin him. It so happens that the boot manufacturers of this country have no objection to duties on importation of leather. The President of the Board of Trade told us last night that taking 1924 as the unit of importation for all kinds of manufactured and semimanufactured goods and putting that unit at 100, then in the first quarter of this year the importation was 120½, in the second quarter 127½ and in the third quarter 137½; and it is still rising. There have been enormous importations of leather during the past few years, and I say that there is ample justification for us to take due notice of this fact. The figures I could give with regard to this importation are far more startling than the figures given by the President of the Board of Trade last night. If you take the year 1029 as the unit of 100 for the importation of leather, then in 1930 it is 217. Boot manufacturers need not be afraid of any inflation of prices for many months to come. Owing to the delay in the introduction of this Bill, there has been such an enormous importation of leather into this country that boot manufacturers can go on using the leather stocks now in this country for some four or six months.
Further, I maintain that if the President of the Board of Trade in his wisdom imposes a duty on leather coming into this country it is not a serious matter for the exporter in the shoe industry. If you take the whole
range of leathers in connection with the manufacture of boots and shoes and impose a duty of 23 per cent. on the importation of leather it is only equivalent to 3d. per foot, or a few pence on a pair of boots or a pair of shoes; and our export trade in boots and shoes is only a very small percentage of the total output of the country. For years it has been unfair to the leather industry of this country to allow millions of pounds worth of goods to come into this country from countries where the conditions of labour and rate of wages would not be tolerated here for a moment; and, in addition, keep our people out of work. I hope the President will pay some attention to this aspect of the case.

Mr. A. BEVAN: Will the hon. Member who is addressing the Comomittee with such evident information about the leather industry tell us with what particular branch of the industry he is connected?

Mr. GIBSON: I have not the slightest objection. It so happens that I am connected with the leather industry which manufactures leather for boots and
shoes.

Mr. BEVAN: Tanning?

Mr. GIBSON: Tanning, yes, various kinds of leather. If any hon. Member puts the question to me, "Do you want Protection because it will help you in your industry?" I say "Yes," and I will be candid with him. Incidentally, at the same time Protection will also help my workpeople and find them work. That is why I say it is for the common good. We want revenue; we want more work and less dole, more prosperity for the country; and one of the ways of securing these ends is to keep out of the country the goods which we can economically manufacture here. I tell the President of the Board of Trade that this Bill has heartened the people in the West Hiding of Yorkshire more than any Bill that has been introduced in this House in the last 10 years. The right hon. Gentleman will have the wholehearted co-operation, not only of the employers of labour in the West Riding, but of hundreds of thousands of workmen, who see in this Bill some measure of salvation and hope for the future of the country.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLEN: I should like for a few minutes to get the Debate back from Second Reading speeches to the point under consideration. In my opinion if the Amendment were carried it would completely destroy the utility of the Bill. I am, therefore, very glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has objected to acceptance of the Amendment. Everything depends on what is raw material. The question has been discussed up and down the country for the past 50 years. I would like to illustrate my idea of what raw material is, and of how the Amendment, if carried, would affect industry. Naturally I turn to the industry of which I know a great deal, though I am not connected with it. I refer to the linen industry. First you have the spinning, which is a separate concern. You have the manufacture, another separate concern. You have the merchants who purchase from the manufacturer. You have the bleacher who takes his goods from the loom. You have the maker-up of handkerchiefs, and the distributor. What is raw material to each of these branches? Take first of all the yarn. We were told yesterday by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. D. Foot) about the dumping of linen yarn. We take yarn as raw material for manufacture. If the Amendment were passed that raw material, which is raw material to the manufacturer, could not be stopped and dumping would go on. The result would be that you would have the same state of affairs in the future as has existed in the past.
Then turn to the linen manufacturer. He hands over his goods to the bleacher —a separate industry entirely. If the bleacher cannot get goods, his hands are idle; all the employés who have been idle in the past will be idle in the future. The Amendment would destroy the utility of the Bill so far as the manufacturer and the bleacher are concerned. Then there are the thousands of girls and women who are employed in the making up of handkerchiefs, or pillow linens or bed linens—a separate industry entirely. The raw materials of all these girls and manufacturers are the piece goods that come from the bleacher. There again you have a different raw material. If you do not prevent these raw materials coming in, the enormous number of girls who have been idle in the past will be idle in the future, That
would be the result of the Amendment, so far as the linen industry is concerned. I take it that the principal object of this Bill is to try to improve industry, to give more employment. This Amendment cuts right across that principle.
I am certain that the hon. Members who tabled this Amendment do not appreciate the difficulties in which they would land the employés who would be affected. I have listened to arguments with reference to the steel industry, and it would surprise me very much if something of the same kind did not happen in the case of that industry. Here is a case which is unanswerable for raw materials of all kinds. It must be absolutely in the discretion of the Board of Trade to decide what is raw material and what is not, and I take it that the President would have before his mind constantly the idea that employment in this country must be improved. It would not be germane to this Amendment to continue discussion of that point. Hon. Members who have moved the Amendment have put the case from their own point of view. I ask them also to look at the matter from the point of view that I have put. I am sure they will agree that the result of the Amendment would be so disastrous that unemployment would be worse in the future than it has been in the past.

Mr. ATTLEE: We have listened to two very admirable speeches from the last two speakers, but both of them have failed entirely to meet the point at issue. There is one question to which I would like an answer from the Government. Is there to be any declaration made within any reasonable time as to what are to be the subjects of this taxation? The point of the Bill is that it leaves things in a state of uncertainty. We are constantly told in the Press and elsewhere that the great danger is uncertainty. Our point with regard to raw material is that the people who use it will not know from day to day or week to week or month to month whether or not they are to have a tax put upon their raw material. That will prevent them making forward contracts either for a supply of raw materials or for the sale of their finished articles.
We are told that we must rely on the good sense of the President of the Board of Trade. Presidents of the Board of Trade come and go and Ministers vary very much in good sense. It is a very
flimsy thing, and if someone who is brought up in the Bankruptcy Court said that he failed because he was trusting to the good sense of the Minister, I do not think he would get away with it. The traders of the country are entitled to something other than a state of uncertainty. Several points raised in the Debate have not been dealt with, and that is an additional point which should be answered. The arguments of the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh (Sir W.

Division No. 8.]
AYES.
[5.25 p.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hicks, Ernest George
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cape, Thomas
John, William
Thorne, William James


Cove, William G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Lunn, William



Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John
Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr. Duncan Graham.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)



Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James





NOES.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Browne, Captain A. C.
Davison, Sir William Henry


Alexander, Sir William
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Burghley, Lord
Denville, Alfred


Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)
Burnett. John George
Dickie, John P.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Donner, P. W.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Calne, G. R. Hall
Doran, Edward


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Dower. Captain A. V. G.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Campbell, Rear-Admi. G. (Burnley)
Drewe, Cedric


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Duggan, Hubert John


Aske, Sir William Robert
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Duncan, James A>L. (Kensington, N.)


Atholl. Duchess of
Castle Stewart, Earl
Dunglass, Lord


Atkinson, Cyril
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Eales, John Frederick


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. B.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Eden, Robert Anthony


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Chalmers, John Rutherford
Ednam, Viscount


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J. A. (Blrm.,W.)
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Ellis, Robert Geoffrey


Balniel, Lord
Chapman, Col.R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Eillston, Captain George Sampson


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Eimley, Viscount


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Chotzner, Alfred James
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Clarke, Frank
Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Clarry, Reginald George
Ersklne-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)


Beaumont, R. E. B. (Portsm'th, Centr'l)
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Essenhlgh, Reginald Clare


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Colfox, Major William Philip
Everard, W. Lindsay


Bernays, Robert
Collins, Sir Godfrey
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Colville, Major David John
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Birchall, Major Sir John Denman
Cook, Thomas A.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Cooke, James D.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.


Bilndell, James
Cooper, A. Duff
Fraser, Captain Ian


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Copeland, Ida
Fuller, Captain A. E. G.


Borodale, Viscount
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Boulton, W. W.
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Ganzonl, Sir John


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Gibson, Charles Granville


Boyce, H. Leslie
Craven-Ellis, William
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bracken, Brendan
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Glossop, C. W. H.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Crooke, J. Smedley
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Brass, Captain Sir William
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Goldle, Noel B.


Briant, Frank
Cross, R. H.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Briscoe, Richard George
Crossley, A. C.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom
Graves, Marjorle


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Davies, MaJ. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Allen) might have been germane if they had been directed to a House that was considering a definite tax to be put on a definite article for a definite period. What we are considering is leaving uncertain powers in uncertain hands and leaving uncertainty hanging over a very large range of our industry.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 43; Noese, 375.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)
Salmon, Major Isldore


Gunston, Captain D. W.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Salt, Edward W.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Magnay, Thomas
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H (Darwen)


Hales, Harold K.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Hall, Lieut. Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Hamilton. Sir R. w.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Scone, Lord


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Marjoribanks, Edward
Selley, Harry R.


Hanley, Dennls A.
Martin, Thomas B.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Harbord, Arthur
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)


Hartington, Marquess of
Mayhew, Lieut-Colonel John M.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Hart land, George A.
Meller, Richard James
Slmmonds, Oliver Edwin


Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen"s Unv., Belfast)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Millar, James Duncan
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Mills, Sir Frederick
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Milne, Charles
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-ln-F.)


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne, C.)


Herbert, George (Rotherham)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Smith-Carlngton, Neville W.


Hlilman, Dr. George B.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Morn an, Robert H
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Holdsworth, Herbert
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Soper, Richard


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hornby, Frank
Munro. Patrick
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Horobin, Ian M.
Nall-Caln, Arthur Ronald N.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Howard, Tom Forrest
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Stones, James


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Nunn, William
Storey, Samuel


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ormlston, Thomas
Stourton, John J.


Hunter-Woston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Palmer, Francis Noel
Strauss, Edward A.


Hurd, Percy A.
Patrick, Colin M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Stuart-Crlchton, Lord C.


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R (M'tr'se)
Pearson, William G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Roml'd)
Peat, Charles u.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Inskfp, Sir Thomas W. H.
Penny, Sir George
Summersby, Charles H.


James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Jamieson, Douglas
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(Pd'gt'n,S.)


Jennings, Roland
Petherick, M.
Templeton, William P.


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thorn, Lleut-Colonel John Gibb


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bllston)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Pickering, Ernest H.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Thompson, Luke


Ker, J. Campbell
Pike, Cecil F.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Potter, John
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt Hon. Sir W.


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Knatchbuil, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wiek-on-T.)


K neb worth, Viscount
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Todd, A. L. S. (Klngswlnford)


Knight, Holford
Purbrick, R.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Knox, Sir Alfred
Pybue, Percy John
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Lamb, Sir Joseph Qulnton
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Law, Sir Alfred
Ramsbotham, Herewald
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ramsden, E.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Leckle, J. A.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rea, Walter Russell
Wayland, Sir William A.


Lees-Jones, John
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wedderburn. Henry James Serymgeour-


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Held, James S. C. (Sterling)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Reld, William Allan (Derby)
Weymouth, Viscount


Levy, Thomas
Remer. John R.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Liddall, Walter S.
Rentoul, Sir Gervalt S.
whyta, Jardlne Bell Wills, Wilfrid D.


Llewellin, Major John J.
Renwick, Major Guetav A.



Lloyd, Geoffrey
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.G'n)
Roberts, Sir Samuel
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Robinson, John Roland
Windsor-Cilva, Lieut-Colonel George


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wlnterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lymington, Viscount
Ropner, Colonel L.
Withers, Sir John James


MacAndrew, MaJ. C. G. (Partlck)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ross, Ronald D.
Womersley, Walter James


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Klngsiey


MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Rothschild, James L. de
Wood, Major M. McKenrle (Banff)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wragg, Herbert


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (SVnoaktr


McEwen, J. H. F.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)



McKeag, William
Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tslde)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


McKie, John Hamilton
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and Lord Erskine.

Mr. LUNN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that no importation shall be deemed to be abnormal in quantity unless the Board are satisfied that articles of the same class or description are normally produced in sufficient quantities in the United Kingdom at reasonable prices.
5.30 p.m.
There is very serious disagreement about this Bill. We would throw it out, while some hon. Members opposite think that there is great urgency for it. But I hope and believe that there will be no two opinions regarding this Amendment. I understand that the principle of this Amendment was included in the anti-dumping Bill of 1919. We say that there should be no prohibition or tax upon foreign articles which are not produced in England at reasonable prices, and the supply of which is not equal to the demand. During the discussion of the previous Amendment, it seemed to me that the interests of the manufacturers and the traders were most concerned in that Amendment, but, in connection with this Amendment I would say that we have a duty to the consumers as well as to the traders and distributors.
I hold that the consumers' interests ought not to be lost sight of when we are passing legislation of this kind. We ought to protect the consumers from being fleeced and we ought not to encourage inefficient or unsatisfactory methods of production. Surely, that is not the policy of this so-called National Government—to encourage inefficiency in industry. Surely it is their policy to look after the interests of the consumers. I believe that, generally, we in this country produce the best goods, and that where price and quality are comparable we ought always to buy British goods. That is the policy of the Empire Marketing Board of which I was for more than two years the vice-chairman. I agree with its policy and I commend its work. The Empire Marketing Board has done more to cultivate a knowledge of the Empire, to encourage the sale of home and Empire products, and to help to a better understanding between all parts of the Empire than anything we have known up to now. I am very sorry that its finances have been so severely cut and its work curtailed. But while the Board always says "Buy British" and is carrying on a campaign, with which I entirely
agree, to encourage our people to buy British, it lays down in all its publications that we ought to do that wherever the price and quality are comparable.
I wish to give a simple illustration from my own experience and not merely one of which I have heard—there may be more glaring illustrations—of how the consumer may be fleeced if this Bill is carried into law. On Saturday, I asked one of my eons to purchase a shaving brush for me. I said to him, "See to it that it is of English manufacture, and that it is hog's hair." He went to the most reputable shop we know, and the manager of that shop placed on the counter a number of English brushes. He said, "I cannot guarantee any one of these as hog's hair." He further said that the lowest price was 6s. Then he brought down a brush of foreign manufacture—I think it was German—and he said, I can guarantee that this is hog's hair. It is no interest of mine to sell it, and I would rather sell the British article, but this is only 3s."
I ask the President of the Board of Trade to take a note of that simple illustration, and, when he is imposing these restrictions and prohibitions, I ask him to have regard to industries which are not competent, to-day, to supply the requirements of our people. I ask him to see to it that the consumers are not going to be fleeced by people who are not manufacturing in sufficient quantities at reasonable prices the articles which the consumers need. If the right hon. Gentleman does not do that what will be the result? We know the conditions of this country. We know that millions of our people have not got much money, and it is the interests of the millions which should count with the Government before the interests of the hundreds in whatever class of life they may be. My case is quite clear, and I have given a simple illustration of what may be done in many other cases; and because I am interested, as I think we all should be and are, in the consumers of this country, I ask the President of the Board of Trade to accept the Amendment and to protect millions of our people from being robbed, as they may be if the Bill be passed without this Amendment.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I rise to support the Amendment. A little while ago
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade told us that the object of this Bill was to assist the trade and industry of Great Britain. I do not want to dissent from that statement, and most of us are prepared to give the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend credit for good intentions, but sometimes even the best intentions lead to disastrous consequences, and we cannot forget that this Bill confers upon the President of the Board of Trade unprecedented powers. While we appreciate his knowledge and his business ability, we are bound to remind the Committee that the range of articles in Class III covers 50 pages of the Import and Export List and comprises many hundreds of articles, and it may very well be that all the articles covered by this list cannot be produced in sufficient quantities and in reasonable quantities in Great Britain. I think, therefore, we are entitled to ask the Committee to accept the Amendment so as to ensure that reasonable care shall be exercised in the use of the tremendous powers asked for in the Bill.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), who spoke a little while ago, when he argued that one of the inevitable consequences of the operation of this Bill will be a general rise in prices, but even if it is possible to disprove that contention, it may very well be that, if you created in any way, by the measures you intend to pursue, a temporary scarcity of any article in this country, then inevitably, according to the law of supply and demand, the price of that article would rise. In existing conditions there are very large sections of the community who could not bear the strain of having to pay more for the goods they need than they are doing at present. Let me remind the Committee of the unemployed and their meagre allowance, of the agricultural labourers and their dependants, of the mining population and those dependent on them. These sections of the community cannot face a situation where the price level is likely to rise, without becoming involved very quickly in struggles for increases in wages. That would be inevitable, and the papers which support the Government are telling us that that is one of the things which must be avoided under existing conditions, because if that state
of affairs develops, we shall pass almost inevitably into that phase which the Government are seeking to avoid, namely, the phase where we shall have internal inflation. Consequently, I think we are entitled to have an assurance, or the Committee had better support the Amendment to ensure, that the things to which I have referred shall not occur.
I accept the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary that the objects and intentions of this Bill are of the best. Those who are supporting it, I know, are hoping for much from it. I remember the right hon Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) waving his hand the other day across to these benches and talking about the times when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had painted pictures of what he called a dim and distant Utopia. I am rather inclined to think that hon. and right hon. Members who are supporting this Bill have been painting for the electors pictures of the tariff Utopia which they intend to create in this country, and if we do not act very carefully in handling the situation with which this Measure seeks to deal, it may be that that tariff Utopia will fade away very rapidly indeed.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The Amendment would, I fear, give us very little clear guidance as to how we were to deal with the operation of this Bill beyond that which is already provided by the use of the words "abnormal quantities," for I observe that in the Amendment itself it says:
Provided that no importation shall be deemed to be abnormal in quantity unless the Board are satisfied that articles of the same class…are normally produced"—
"normally" being no more definite than"abnormal"—
in sufficient quantities"—
and that would be a matter of opinion; and finally—
at reasonable prices,
which, again, is a matter of opinion, so that I think my hon. Friends will see that even the safeguards which they would wish to insert into the Bill do not carry us any further than the phraseology already in the Bill. I know what their real object is. It is to prevent any form of profiteering as a result of the Orders that might be issued. I think I might at
this stage tell the Committee the simple way in which we could deal, if there were no other ways open to us, with profiteering. The shortest and simplest way of dealing with it is to withdraw the Order if profiteering is found to prevail, and immediately the whole support, if there be any in the Order, for profiteering would have disappeared. That is much the simplest way of dealing with the matter, and it is far better than attempting to define in the Clause itself exactly—

Mr. LUNN: Is not prevention better than cure?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think there is much likelihood of it arising, and if it arises, I have already provided means for knocking the foundations from under the feet of the profiteer. It is purely with the object of keeping the Bill within limits which are not too closely defined, in order that we should be given as wide a discretion as the Committee is prepared to grant us, that I resist the Amendment; and I hope that with the suggestion that it provides no more definite guidance than is already to be found in the Clause, my hon. Friends will not press the Amendment.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he intends to deal with such a case as the one that I venture to put before him? The President will remember that in 1925 the cutlery trade of Sheffield proceeded to a Safeguarding Committee, their object being to obtain a Safeguarding Duty upon imported goods in the cutlery trade. The cutlers of Sheffield were advised to supply the Committee with certain figures, relating, first of all, to the wholesale price of the imported article and, secondly, to the estimated price of the same article should that article be produced in Sheffield. Let me quote three sets of figures, and perhaps the President will be good enough to indicate how he intends to deal with this particular type of case, because, apart from profiteering, my hon. Friend has got this in his mind I know.
These are figures submitted by the cutlers of Sheffield, and they refer to a particular kind of scissors. The figures supplied showed that this article was presently being sold on the English
market at 8s. per dozen, or 8d. per pair of scissors, whereas should the same article be produced in Sheffield, the cutlers themselves stated that they could not be produced under 25s. per dozen, or an increase of 200 per cent. over and above the present price of the article Quite clearly the article is of a cheap kind, and it is not produced in Sheffield at all. Thanks to the skill and the art of the Sheffield cutlers, they are doing something infinitely superior. The second article referred to—

Mr. PIKE: On a point of Order. What does the hon. Member mean by "the Sheffield cutlers"?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member, I think, must understand that if he wishes to interrupt a speaker, he can only do so if the speaker gives way. It is not a question of a point of Order. The hon. Member must not interrupt by pretending to rise to a point of Order.

Mr. PIKE: Will the hon. Member tell us what he means by figures supplied by the cutlers of Sheffield?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member major may not be aware of the procedure under the Safeguarding Act of a few years ago, but when approaching a Safeguarding Committee the employers in a case were obliged to submit such figures as those which I have quoted—not only the current price of the imported article, but also the estimated price assuming that the same article was produced by the employers who made the application. The figures I have given were supplied by the cutlers of Sheffield. The second illustration—and I am sure the President will be very interested and will, if he can, supply us with some reply as to what he intends to do—is in reference to a pocket knife imported from Germany and sold in this country at 8s. 6d. per dozen. The Sheffield cutlers, on the basis of these figures: wages 11s. 1d., materials 4s. 6d., overhead charges 5s. 9d., profit 3s. 10d., stated that the wholesale selling price of a similar article, if produced in Sheffield, would be £1 5s. 2d., producing again an increase of 200 per cent. I could quote several similar instances. It is obvious to the President that these particular articles are not produced in this country. Consequently, should they be
brought within the meaning of the Bill, a boy who wants a knife to do one of the thousand and one things which a boy does with a knife, will be called upon to pay 2s. 2d. instead of 7½d. or 9d. That is a price which he is quite unable to pay. Will the President of the Board of Trade be good enough to indicate what he intends to do in a case like that?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I readily respond to the invitation of my hon. Friend, but I am afraid that the only answer I can give him is one which is usual in this House: that and all relevant considerations will be taken into account. I

know the kind of things that my hon. Friend has in mind. I have seen some of these eightpenny scissors. I had a sample sent to me when we were discussing the Safeguarding Duties. I kept one pair, which was in a nice little cover, in my pocket, and at the end of the week it would barely cut paper. Sheffield is quite prepared, I am sure, to make a good fight for quality in the markets of the world.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 44; Noes. 385.

Elmley, Viscount
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Reid, James S. C. (Sterling)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lees-Jones, John
Remer, John R.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Entwistle, Major Cyril Fuliard
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Levy, Thomas
Rhys, Hon. Charles Aithur U.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
Liddall, Walter S.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Llewellin, Major John J.
Roberts, Sir Samuel


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Robinson, John Roland


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn.G. (Wd.G'n)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lymington, Viscount
Ross, Ronald D.


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Fraser, Captain Ian
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Rothschild, James L. de


Fuller, Captain A. E. G.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Ganzoni, Sir John
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Gibson, Charles Granville
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Glossop, C. w. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)


Gluckstein, Louis Halie
McEwen, J. H. F.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Goldie, Noel B.
McKeag, William
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Goodman, Colonel Albert W,
McKle, John Hamilton
Salmon, Major Isidore


Gower, Sir Robert
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Salt, Edward W.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Graves, Marjorie
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Magnay, Thomas
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Savery, Samuel Servington


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Scone, Lord


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Selley, Harry R.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Marjoribanks, Edward
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Martin, Thomas B.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Hales, Harold K.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John M.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Millar, James Duncan
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)


Harris, Percy A.
Milne, Charles
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Hartington, Marquess of
Milne, John Sydney Ward law-
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Hartland, George A.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Smith-Carington. Neville W.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Morgan, Robert H.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Soper, Richard


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Morrison, William Shephard
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Herbert, George (Rotherham)
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hillman, Dr. George B,
Munro, Patrick
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Nall-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Holdsworth, Herbert
Nathan, Major H. L.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Stones, James


Hornby, Frank
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Storey, Samuel


Horobln, Ian M.
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Stourton, John J.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Nunn, William
Strauss, Edward A.


Howard, Tom Forrest
Ormiston, Thomas
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Stuart-Crichton, Lord C.


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Patrick, Colin M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Peake, Captain Osbert
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Hurd, Percy A.
Pearson, William G.
Summersby, Charles H.


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Peat, Charles U.
Sutcllffe, Harold


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. (M'tr'se)
Percy, Lord Eustace
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(Pd'gt'n,S.)


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Templeton, William P.


Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Thorn, Lieut.-Colonel John Gibb


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Petherick, M.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Jamleson, Douglas
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thompson Luke


Janner, Barnett
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Jennings, Roland
Pickering, Ernest H.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Pike, Cecil F.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Potter, John
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Ker, J. Campbell
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Purbrick, R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Pybus, Percy John
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Knebworth, Viscount
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Knight, Holford
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ramsbotham, Herswald
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ramsden, E.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wedderburn,Henry James Scrymgeour-


Law, Sir Alfred
Rea, Walter Russell
Wells, Sydney Richard


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Weymouth, Viscount


Leckle, J. A.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.




Whyte, Jardine Bell
Wise, Alfred R.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Wills Wilfrid D.
Withers, Sir John James
Wragg, Herbert


Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Wilson, G.H.A. (Cambridge U.)
Womersley, Walter James



Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, Rt. Hon, Sir H. Kingsley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Wood, Major M. McKenzle (Banff)
Captain Austin Hudson and Commander Southby.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): Before I call on the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) to move the next Amendment, I would point out that that Amendment and the three Amendments which follow are really one Amendment, and I would ask him to deal with them as one Amendment

Mr. PARKINSON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out the word "An," and to insert instead thereof the words "A draft of any."
The object of this Amendment is to ensure for the House of Commons what we regard as proper control, to make certain that the Orders in Council shall be submitted to the House before they become operative. The Amendment proposes that the draft of any Order shall be laid upon the Table, instead of the Order itself. Every Member of the House ought to have an opportunity of examining the draft of any Order. The Clause as drawn up gives unlimited power to the right hon. Gentleman to enforce his decisions upon the House of Commons. It may be all very well to allow that from some points of view, but when one recognises that the right hon. Gentleman has been associated with the Liberal party, who have made such a great fight over similar points in the past, it is somewhat surprising that he should have dealt with the matter in this way. He is to be given a power which is too great for any individual to exercise. The power of the House of Commons ought not to be delegated to an individual. There will be no consultation with Parliament, and no opportunity for hon. Members to examine the list or to give decent consideration to the Orders.
These Orders ought to be subject to criticism before they are issued, but under the Bill as it is drafted no criticism is possible. The Orders will come up for approval by the House at some later date. In my opinion they ought not to operate until the House has had an opportunity of ascertaining the facts and knowing what goods are to be prohibited. An Order may be in operation for some months before it is presented to the
House of Commons. Only a few days ago the Prime Minister said that the question of dumping would have to be investigated and consideration given to the particular goods to be dealt with before duties were imposed. What consideration can be given to the articles to be included under these Orders? No consideration at all, outside the Department of the right hon. Gentleman and the Cabinet. This Measure is denying to individual Members of Parliament the rights which they ought to enjoy. It will give the right hon. Gentleman greater powers than have ever before been given to any individual Minister. He will have the power to impose his will upon the House, and Members will be denied the right to which we believe they are honestly entitled.
The next Amendment reads in line 6, after the word "Order," to insert the words "to be." This Amendment is also designed to ensure that any Order shall be laid before the House before it comes into operation. Quite a number of Orders may be made in the immediate future, indeed they may be already drafted. We are not aware how far the hon. Gentlemen has got with the work in hand, but in view of what appears to be the urgency of the case it is quite likely that many of the Orders have already been drafted. In the course of time it will be found necessary to make further Orders. According to views expressed from the Government side of the House, there will be a continuous series of Orders until practically speaking all the 39 pages of articles have been listed. We say that hon. Members desirous of doing so ought to have an opportunity of examining the Orders beforehand. Probably many Members would not bother to take advantage of that opportunity, but it ought to be within the power of any Member to discuss the Orders or to criticise them.
The third Amendment reads in line 7, to leave out from the word "Parliament," to the word "it," in line 11, and to insert instead thereof the words:
and such Order shall not come into operation until.
This Amendment, too, is put forward to safeguard the rights of individual Members, and can be supported by the arguments I have already used in protesting against an Order not coming before the House until some time after it has been put into operation. In the present circumstances it may be March before we are asked to approve an Order made now. To issue an Order and afterwards ask Parliament to approve of it is quite contrary to our ordinary procedure. In this case the right hon. Gentleman feels quite sure that the Order will receive approval, owing to the very large majority behind the Government, but, all the same, minorities ought not to be robbed of their undoubted rights of investigation. Though the Government may have a large majority at the moment, they must not forget that minorities become majorities when Governments change. A similar procedure may be adopted in future by other Governments, and in that day the supporters of the present Government will very likely regard it as very dangerous to their interests.
The fourth Amendment is to leave out lines 13 to 17. The lines which it is proposed to omit deal with the calculation of dates and say:
Provided that in reckoning any such period of twenty-eight days as aforesaid no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which the Commons House is adjourned for more than four days.
Does not that show that many of the Orders which will be made now cannot come up for approval before March of next year, that they will have been in operation for three months before being submitted to us? Does it not strike hon. Members that it will be awkward for the trading community if an Order, after being in operation for two or three months, has then to be submitted for approval by this House? It must create a feeling of uncertainty; in my view, we are going the wrong way about things. We know that the Bill will be carried, and that all our Amendments will be defeated unless the Government care to accept any of them, but that does not relieve us of the duty of trying to protect the interests of private Members. Finally, I would again submit that we are being asked here to adopt a procedure which
can hardly be accepted by responsible people. We feel that the Government are departing from the ordinary methods of government.

Mr. BATEY: I beg to support the Amendment, because in my view the method adopted by the Government is altogether wrong. Although when we go into the Lobbies the decision may be a foregone conclusion the Opposition are justified in registering their disapproval of this revolutionary method. Had we been sitting on the other side and the supporters of the Government were where we now are, nobody would have been louder than they in protests against action of this kind. We are protesting against the principle of taking action before the House of Commons has had a chance of expressing its view as to what articles we shall prevent being dumped into this country. I can well understand the Conservative party being in favour of preventing dumping, I can understand them being full-blooded Protectionists, but I cannot understand them handling the matter in this unconstitutional and unparliamentary way. In the country the Conservative party go around boasting that they stand for the Constitution, and are always trying to create the impression that the Labour party want to overturn the Constitution, yet now we find the Conservatives using the most unconstitutional methods in connection with these Orders in Council. Still less can I understand the action of the Liberal party in supporting this procedure.
If the Labour party, when they were in office, had come forward with proposals like this, the present President of the Board of Trade would have been one of the first to argue that the House of Commons ought to have the opportunity of saying what articles should be made subject to these Orders before the Orders themselves were issued. I can well understand that he wants to prevent some articles being dumped, and had he come forward with a proper Bill, in a proper way, we might have agreed with him about some of the articles, but, instead, he is asking for general powers to deal with articles in a wholesale fashion, and I say that he is asking far too much. It is my belief that he will find eventually that he has gone too far and taken too great powers to himself. I
remember a Minister in a former Conservative Government who took large powers to deal with certain questions and was quite glad when he "got shut of" those powers. In the same way I believe the President of the Board of Trade will regret the day when he asked for these general powers, for he will find the Conservatives on one side and the Opposition on the other both attacking him for the way in which he has exercised those powers, this side not satisfied and that side not satisfied. If we had an opportunity of examining the list of articles which it was proposed to exclude we might be able to persuade the right hon. Gentleman that it would not be an advantage to the people of this country to prevent their being dumped here. The Orders to be issued by the right hon. Gentleman may benefit small traders, but, in my view, this Bill is going to be—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is departing from the Amendment. The Question before the Committee is whether "an Order" or "a draft of any Order" shall be laid before the House.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: It would have been much better if the President of the Board of Trade had placed before the Committee a list of the articles which he intends to prohibit, because, while his proposals might benefit some particular trades, I do not think that they would be beneficial to other trades; in fact, I feel sure they might do serious injury to some trades. It would be better for the country that some dumping should take place rather than an injury should be done to a number of the larger trades of this country.

Mr. HARRIS: I can quite understand that the President of the Board of Trade will not be able to accept this Amendment, because it is clear that the right hon. Gentleman desires to have these powers in order to deal with abnormal importations, or any attempt to forestall a tax by rushing foreign goods into this country. If these Orders had to lie on the Table, that might intensify the evil, because it would publish to the world the intention of the Government that there was going to be a duty placed on certain articles, and then, of course, importers would expedite their importations.
That being so, it is impossible for me to support this Amendment.
I am concerned with another aspect of this question which, I suggest, the President of the Board of Trade should consider. If the House is sitting, hon. Members will be conscious of the Orders which are being issued, and objections can be raised to them. It is true that that is not an adequate protection, because then the tax would have been imposed, and that is a revolutionary departure from the constitutional practice which can only be justified by a state of emergency. If the House is adjourned for two or three months, then the President of the Board of Trade can work his wicked worst if he so desires. During the Adjournment period he might be issuing Orders relating to all sorts and categories of goods, and the parties concerned—the taxpayer, the importer and the user of those goods in this country— might not have any remedy at all for two or three months, and that might turn out to be a very serious matter.
The right hon. Gentleman might impose quite unconsciously a duty that might strike a blow at the heart of the industries using those imported articles. Some apparently innocent imported article might turn out, upon examination, to be essential to some important industry in this country. I have had experience today of the users of some completely manufactured articles which are imported into this country. I will not mention the name of the firm, but their representative came to me, and pointed out that a particular completely manufactured article would come under the category of one of the prohibited imports, and he told me that it was an essential raw material of their industry, and if its importation were prohibited it would drive the article which his firm manufactured off the market, and consequently they were very much concerned about it. I told this gentleman that the right thing for him to do was to go to the office of the President of the Board of Trade.
If this House happened to be sitting when a complaint of this kind was made to me, I could raise it across the Floor of the House—I could do that after eleven o'clock at night—and that would be some remedy, but if the House is adjourned, and the Members are scattered to the four quarters of the United
Kingdom, then the Minister is not in a position to be criticised or supervised by Parliament. In this way the rights of manufacturers are being undermined, and that is a serious thing. I would suggest that during the Report Stage the Government ought to consider whether the right hon. Gentleman should be allowed to use these powers during the Recess. We have all been through trying times, and I am sure that Ministers are quite ready to meet in order to carry out their great responsibilities. If we are faced with such a great emergency the House might adjourn for not more than a week or 10 days. The only alternative is to provide that when the House is not sitting this machinery should not be put into operation. I am aware that the President of the Board of Trade is a great constitutionalist and a great parliamentarian and values the rights of private citizens, but we might not always be so fortunate in our choice of someone to fill that office.

Mr. COVE: The speech of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) shows that the Liberals are very uneasy about these proposals, and the hon. Member has tld us that this is a very dangerous Bill and gives to the President of the Board of Trade very wide and dangerous powers. The hon. Member agrees that these powers place the President of the Board of Trade in the position of a dictator, and yet, in spite of that, my hon. Friend, and those Liberals associated with him, are apparently willing to go into the Lobby against this Amendment, and consequently they are supporting this very dangerous Bill. The Liberal Members tell us that these proposals are likely to do incalculable harm to a large number of industries, and yet they have declared that they will go into the Lobby in support of the Government. Although those hon. Members have protested vehemently that they are still Free Traders, they are going to support the President of the Board of Trade in clapping on tariffs, and using his dictatorial powers without any discussion being possible in this House for doing those dangerous things.
So far the right hon. Gentleman has not given us a single word in defence of what he is proposing to do under this Clause and, as far as I can judge by the
temper and tone of hon. Members sitting behind him, the right hon. Gentleman intends to be a dictator, and a very active and industrious dictator, because he has told us that he is going to work over the week-end. There will be such a rush of orders issued one after the other that it will be absolutely impossible for this House to discuss them. Those orders will go through automatically, and the President of the Board of Trade and the Custom officers will be able to use these powers without any discussion whatever in this House.
The right hon. Gentleman always prided himself upon being a democrat. He is not only a great business man, but he has been, in the past, a great supporter of democracy. What democracy is there in these proposals? I do not see the slightest sign of any democracy in them, and I fear that the right hon. Gentleman is so ashamed of his proposals that he will not attempt to defend them in this House. Not only is the right hon. Gentleman to be the dictator, but that position applies to the President of the Board of Trade whoever he may be. Supposing that the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) became the President of the Board of Trade, would hon. Members opposite go into the Lobby in support of his proposals? If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) became President of the Board of Trade, what would happen then, as far as the Conservatives are concerned? We have, for the time being, as President of the Board of Trade, a gentleman whom all the Members sitting on the other side of the House are prepared to trust for the moment, although I am afraid that there is one section of hon. Members who are supporting the Government who are bound to be disappointed sooner or later.
Either the Liberal Free Traders will be disappointed or the Conservatives. We shall have to wait and see the result, and I am sure that we shall have some very interesting discussions in the future. Here we are considering a wicked Bill which is going to do great damage to the trade and industry of this country, and is establishing a dictatorship. This is bound to injure our trade and commerce, and this House, under this Bill, is giving up its right to discuss and
legislate in regard to these matters, and the Liberal party are supporting these iniquitous proposals.

Mr. JENNINGS: I crave the indulgence of the House for this, my first effort in addressing it. In opposing this Amendment, I feel that time is of the essence of the contract in dealing with this system of dumping. It is high time that we did have a business man with a live Department ready to deal expeditiously with this system, which is crippling the employment of our people. I represent a division which comprises thousands of miners and thousands of workers in the Imperial chemical industry, and I believe that this Bill, put into operation expeditiously, will keep in employment many of the people who sent me here. I am under no delusion as to what were my pledges in the constituency. I pledged myself to come here and support any Measure that would substitute employment in a productive occupation for the present system of unemployment pay. We shall never reach any state of prosperity in this country until we can re-employ those millions of people who are, unfortunately, out of employment to-day—

Mr. THORNE: On a point of Order.

HON. MEMBERS: Maiden speech!

Mr. THORNE: I do not mind whether it is a maiden speech or not—[Interruption.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order ! A point of Order is being raised.

Mr. THORNE: I wish to ask whether the hon. Member is in order in making a Second Reading speech, and whether he should not apply himself to the Amendment before the Committee'?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must say that it seemed to me that the hon. Member was wandering a very long way from the point before the Committee, but, as he is making his maiden speech, I did not interrupt him.

Mr. THORNE: I will make my maiden speech.

Mr. JENNINGS: I must say that I was endeavouring to stick to the point. I said at the commencement that time
was of the essence of the contract. The re-employment of our people is a question of very great urgency, which cannot wait until this House has discussed every Measure, which, in my opinion, the President of the Board of Trade should put in operation quickly. The point that I was raising was that time is of importance in this ease, and that we should not be allowed to discuss everything here, and have Amendments moved, but that the President of the Board of Trade should deal with these matters in a businesslike way. That is my point, and I consider that the Amendment should be strongly opposed.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The proposal of my hon. Friends opposite would render it possible for anyone who wished to get in ahead of the restrictions which are now to be imposed to do so with great ease during the period of 28 days. The object of this Bill is not that which is under discussion at this stage. The Amendments before the Committee are purely concerned with the question of procedure. It is quite clear, from the previous discussions that we have had and from the Bill itself, that the intention of the Government is that the Orders shall come before Parliament within 28 days, and can be revoked by Parliament if it so desires, but—and I think my hon. Friends have overlooked these words— that each Order
shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament so soon as may be after it is made.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) asked whether it would be possible to have anything in the nature of discussion during that period. There can only be one possibility of discussion until the Order is actually laid, and that is by question and answer across the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend must not ignore that altogether; it does provide some safeguard, so that the aggrieved person, through his Member or others, may bring the matter before Parliament and inquire from the Minister publicly what he has to say on the subjects which are raised. Of course, that is by no means a substitute for the ordinary procedure of the House; I do not suggest that it is; but it does provide one means by which publicity can be obtained.

Mr. D. M. MASON: Will all these Orders be laid before the House?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Bill provides that
An Order made under this section shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made.
That refers to every Order. The normal procedure by Order will not be departed from in what we are doing here. If we were to adopt the method suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite, it would simply mean that the object of the Bill would be largely defeated, especially by those who are bringing in abnormal quantities of the goods that we desire to check, from the near-by countries at all events, and that would happen to such an extent that it would be very little use our attempting to proceed by way of Order at all.

Mr. ATTLEE: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman that these Orders which have to be approved by the House should come on in the ordinary course of business, or will they just come on after eleven o'clock?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say when they would be taken; that would be a matter for those who are arranging the business of the House. It is impossible for me to say at this stage exactly how and when it would be done. But there is a well-known position in our agenda for Orders of this description, and that will certainly not be departed from. Before I sit down, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Sedge-field (Mr. Jennings), who addressed the House just now with great acceptance.

Mr. HARRIS: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the very important point that I raised, namely, that, if an Order were made during the Recess, it might not come before the House for three or four months.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot imagine this House being adjourned for as long as three or four months. If it meets again, say, early in February, the whole action of the Board of Trade during the Recess could then come under review if the House so desires.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Will not the right hon. Gentleman give the House some assurance that, when the Resolu-
tions to approve these Orders come before the House, they will be brought forward at such a time that the House can consider them properly. The right hon. Gentleman is quite aware that, when Orders of this class come before the House, they never have an opportunity of proper discussion. They are put in shortly before 11 o'clock, or after 11 o'clock, on an ordinary day, and the House has no opportunity to discuss them; it is merely a formal matter, some questions, perhaps, being asked of the Minister. When these Resolutions are Resolutions to continue taxes, as they will be, surely the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to assure the House that decent and proper time will be given for their discussion, in view of the great importance of the matters that will have to be discussed.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I should like to point out that the procedure to which the right hon. Gentleman has made allusion will involve a very unusual mass of work for the House. In the past, the procedure with regard to Orders-in-Council in the House of Commons has been regarded as more or less adequate, because it has given no great amount of work to that part of our constitutional machinery; but it is now going to involve an unusual burden of work, and, if the procedure of the House of Commons is going to be altered in one respect, is it not desirable that appropriate alterations should be made in other respects? The procedure with regard to Orders-in-Council is going to be used for imposing taxation. Is it not desirable that alterations should be made in some other parts of the Standing Orders of the House, so that these Orders may be subjected to proper Parliamentary scrutiny? I suggest that it is very bad constitutional practice to make alterations in one part of the Standing Orders without making the appropriate alterations in other parts.
I am sure that our request is a modest one. Although the Opposition cannot affect the powers for which the right hon. Gentleman is asking, and has no hope at all of defeating him in the Lobbies, I suggest to him, and also to the Liberals who are supporting him, and who, especially, ought to be very jealous of the rights of the House of Commons, that these powers ought not to be given
without this safeguard. When these taxes are imposed, the only opportunity that we have of questioning them and discussing them is by a Prayer after eleven o'clock. That is not an adequate opportunity, and it certainly is not the atmosphere in which the House of Commons ought to consider these very diverse and complicated matters. Therefore, I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to consider some modification of the other procedure of the House of Commons, in order to give an adequate opportunity for discussing this procedure by Order when the House meets.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am very anxious to meet the feeling of the House in the matter of this kind, but it is difficult for me to make any statement with regard to the order of business. I would point out, however, that the Motion that will come before the House must be in the form of a substantive Resolution—a Resolution approving of the Order; so that the position is rather different from that of the Prayers to which we are accustomed late at night, and which, as we know, are largely matters of form. I do not think I shall be rash if I say that, when the Orders which we may find it necessary to issue in the near future come up for discussion in the House, the House will see that there is something in the nature of a first-class debate. I could not promise that it should come on early in the day. It may have to be late at night. That depends on the business that we are transacting. But it will not be regarded as a purely formal stage.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will not the right hon. Gentleman go one step further? A large number of Gas Orders and other Orders of that kind are taken at eleven o'clock, about which everyone is agreed and which are matters of form; it only happens now and then that one is discussed. The present matter, however, is one which we all agree is quite exceptional. If the House of Commons is to give an opinion upon it, all that we ask is that the right hon. Gentleman should tell us that, so far as he is concerned, he will see that we get proper time, so that the public may hear about these Orders and so that the discussions upon them will not be so negligible as is the case after eleven o'clock at night.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not ask me to commit the Leader of the House, with whom I have had no opportunity of discussing the matter, but the matter is certainly one of considerable importance, and I do desire that the House should have an opportunity of expressing its view. It may have to be taken late at night; that depends upon the course of public business; and, if that be so, I am afraid that I can offer nothing else.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will you do your best?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will convey the views of the right hon. Gentleman.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I do not think we ought to leave this matter without a more adequate assurance. I appreciate the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to give what assurances he can, but the House is now parting with powers which are ordinarily exercised under a Finance Bill, where considerable opportunities are given for adequate discussion. Hon. Members can only discharge their duties to their constituents if they are allowed the fullest opportunity in the House itself to discuss these taxes. The Committee should remember that the consumers of these goods should have the opportunity of getting their case represented on the Floor of the House of Commons itself. We are in the hands of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he thinks the House of Commons will want to discuss these matters fully, but he cannot have derived that impression from the way in which the House has behaved up to the present. No House of Commons has ever given its powers away with such complete indifference to its traditions as this House has shown daring the last few days. The time may come when the precedents which are being established now will be used for purposes not nearly so agreeable to hon. Members opposite. The history of our Constitution has shown very often that precedents have been established for purposes the very opposite of those for which they have been subsequently used. This is not a matter on which we as a Labour party or a Liberal party or a Conservative party are involved, but the House itself, before it parts with these powers, should force the right hon. Gentleman
to give an assurance that the Government, which is master of the House, agree that, when these Orders come before the House, they will come in such a manner and at such a time as the Finance Bill would in the ordinary way. There is nothing to injure them in that, because the Orders would be operative. All we want is that those whose interests are affected by the Orders should have an adequate opportunity of expressing their case on the Floor of the House. The time will come when all these precedents, which are being established now, will be quoted against hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite before the end of this Parliament. As to the Amendment itself, it would be a good thing if the Liberal Members who support the Government were to leave the right hon. Gentleman naked and defenceless against the Conservative hordes. It might be desirable if they were to put a Debate in the House of Commons between themselves and the charge of the cavalry of the hon. Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). If these powers are given to the right hon. Gentleman without an adequate opportunity for Parliamentary Debate, the Liberal party will leave him naked in Parliamentary Debate. I hope that they will close in on him and defend him when the time comes.

Mr. M. W. BEAUMONT: Anybody who was in the last House of Commons, when the Labour Government were in power, must have laughed when he heard the indignant defence of the rights of free speech put up by the hon. Member who has just spoken. He reminds us that the use of these powers may became a precedent. If we have learned anything about the muzzling of free speech, we have learned it from the hon. Gentlemen opposite. They have taught us and they were admirable masters and, if we have learned anything from them, I am sure that they are deeply grateful. The Guillotine on the Finance Bill, the kangaroo powers of Chairmen in Committees upstairs, every possible muzzle on free speech was used by them on the House of Commons when they were in power. Yet their back benchers used to complain that they could not muzzle the Opposition. Now they came here and talk about the rights of free speech. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will see that these important
Measures are debated at the proper time, but that he will not take too much to heart the indignant protests of the hon. Member opposite.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Amendment moved from the other side of the House is, of course, a wrecking Amendment. It would defeat the very purpose of the Bill and, if such an Amendment were carried, we might just as well abandon the Bill at once. I am certainly not going to support any Amendment of that character, but the peculiarity of the recent discussion is that it had no relation whatever to the Amendment, but dealt with a different matter, namely, an appeal to the President of the Board of Trade as to the time at which we shall be able to discuss the Orders made in pursuance of this Bill when it is passed. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to consider a suggestion which I would submit to him. I certainly do not think it reasonable to ask that, whenever an Order is made under this Bill, it should always come on at an early hour, but the first Orders made will have a special importance as indicating the manner and spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman is going to administer the powers given to him. If he could see his way to arrange that the first batch of Orders or single Order should afford the House an opportunity for something like a Second Reading Debate on the method in which his powers were being applied, and that at a reasonable time of day, it would meet what is of substance in the request of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It would not endanger the success of the operation of the Bill, and Members on all sides might wish to have some opportunity of that kind in taking part-in what I suggest should be something of a Second Beading Debate on the operation of the Bill.

Mr. MAXTON: I support the Amendment of the official Opposition on the general principle that it is bad business to place in the hands of the Minister any more power than is absolutely necessary for carrying on the work of his Department. I am not inclined to think that this is a more objectionable use of Orders-in-Council than that made by any Government, including the late Labour Government. Those on this side of the House need not press the President of
the Board of Trade for promises to discuss these matters. I do not know the view of the official Opposition, but I certainly do not wish to discuss the details of the various Orders made by the President of the Board of Trade. I want to discuss—when the facts prove it to be the case—that the whole policy, of which these Orders are part, has proved to be absolutely futile in meeting the trade situation. I want to expedite the operation of these Orders and these taxes, because nothing will prove to the country the complete futility of the Protectionist method but its actual operation, and nothing in my view will conduce more to the complete collapse of the capitalist system than to allow the hon. Members opposite to have their way. I do not want to discuss particular Orders or to talk about whether bacon for Bournemouth or steel for Glasgow is being safeguarded. What I want to discuss in the House is the failure of the general policy, and I am sure that, without any favours from the President of the Board of Trade, the Opposition will be bound to have some opportunities provided either on a Vote of Censure or on the Minister's salary. Those would provide better and more adequate opportunities for dealing with what I personally want to deal with than the very limited opportunities which would be presented in discussing any particular Order.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know if my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) was present when I replied to a similar point from the other side. I promised to communicate with the Leader of the House, but I did not think I was authorised at this particular stage to make any statement as to the allocation of business, certainly not so far ahead as the beginning of next Session. I made it clear to the House that it was a matter in which general interest was taken, and that to deal with it like a Prayer after Eleven o'clock at night would not be fair to the House, nor would it adequately comply with the desire of the House to review what had been done during the Recess. Of course, if the Opposition ask for a Supply day on which to discuss the salary of the President of the Board of Trade, I am sure that the request would be complied with and one of the days set aside. That would satisfy the hon.
Gentleman below the Gangway. He does not want to discuss these academic questions of either Free Trade or Protection, as he is not interested in one or the other, and he would have a full opportunity then of discussing anything done by the President of the Board of Trade at any time. It will satisfy him and also the official Opposition who will be able to cover the whole ground. If it is desired that the Orders themselves shall be the subject of discussion, I shall make strong representations—I do not go further than that—to the Leader of the House that time shall be provided.

Mr. LANSBURY: It is a pity that the Leader of the House cannot be present at the discussion. He may be busy, but, after all, we are going to pass a very exceptional Bill, and the point which is raised just now is not one which can be dealt with in the manner in which the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) or the right hon. Member himself has suggested, namely, by calling for the salary of the President of the Board of Trade. There is a certain period of the year when one can call for these Votes, but these regulations are going to be passed with express speed. I would have been satisfied for the moment with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, because I believe that, once we get down to discussing them, we would be able to show how futile and how injurious many of them would be. I, too, want to discuss the bigger question of the difference between capitalist administration and socialist administration, but we are all elected to this House to deal with day-to-day views, and this matter we are dealing with to-day is fraught with so much danger to the workers and industrialists generally that we want the earliest and most effective opportunity of discussing what the right hon. Gentleman does. For that reason, I welcome his statement that he would make representations to the Leader of the House, but we might have had a communication from the Leader of the House himself. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, whatever other evil the Labour Government did, it had not the courage to bring forward so revolutionary a method as this of taxing the rich. I wish they had had the courage to do it.

Mr. D. M. MASON: Would it not meet the case and meet the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) if the President of the Board of Trade would convey the suggestion to the Leader of the House, and if he could give an assurance that on the Report stage there would be some provision in the Bill to meet these points under discussion? If we could have some assurance that we would have some machinery so that these Orders could be discussed, that would meet the points which have been raised.

Mr. THORNE: Although we have a number of Amendments on the Order Paper, I am convinced that the President of the Board of Trade is not going to accept a single one of them, good, bad or indifferent. The Prime Minister said this afternoon that he was going to get through Committee, Report and Third Reading to-night. The Bill will receive the Royal Assent to-morrow, and the

Division No. 10.]
AYES.
[7.18 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Dower, Captain A. V. G.


Alexander, Sir William
Burnett, John George
Drewe, Cedric


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Duckworth, George A. V.


Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.W)
Caine, G. R. Hall
Dundale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Duggan, Hubert John


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Campbell. Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Duncan, James A.L. (Kensington, N.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Camonell-Johnston, Malcolm
Dunglass, Lord


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Eales, John Frederick


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Eastwood, John Francis


Aske, Sir William Robert
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Eden, Robert Anthony


Athoff, Duchess of
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Atkinson, Cyril
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Ednam, Viscount.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. B.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm., W.)
Ellis, Robert Geoffrey


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Elmley, Viscount


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Balniel, Lord
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Emrys-Evans. P. V.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Chotzner, Alfred James
Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Erskine-Bolst. Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Clarke, Frank
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Eterard, W. Lindsay


Beaumont, R. E. B. (Portsm'th, Centr'l)
Colfox, Major William Philip
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Colville, Major David John
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Cooke, James D.
Foot. Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Cooper, A. Duff
Ford, Sir Patrick J.


Bernays. Robert
Copeland, Ida
Fraser, Captain Ian


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Bircnall, Major Sir John Denman
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Fuller, Captain A. E. G.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Ganzoni, Sir John


Blindell, James
Cranborne, Viscount
Gibson, Charles Granville


Borodale, Viscount
Craven-Ellis, William
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Boulton, W. W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Crooke, J. Smedley
Glossop, C. W. H.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Goldie. Noel B.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Bracken, Brendan
Cross, R. H.
Gower, Sir Robert


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Crossley, A. C.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Briant, Frank
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Briscoe, Richard George
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Greene, William P. C.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Davies, Maj. Geo.F. (Somerset,Yeovll)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davison, sir William Henry
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. john


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Denville, Alfred
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro',W.)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Dickie, John P.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Donner, P. W.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Burghley, Lord
Doran, Edward
Gunston, Captain D. W.

result will be that the Act will be operating on Monday. I am convinced that a lot of the Orders are already drafted. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether they will be laid on the Table one day next week, so that we can examine them and see whether there is a possibility of disagreeing or agreeing with those already made. He has told us that there will be an opportunity of discussing them, but the Government have taken the time of the House up to Christmas. The House is going to adjourn at the latter end of the month, and we shall not assemble again, as rumour goes, until February, when all the damage will have been done. The House, therefore, is not going to have a chance between now and February of discussing any of the Orders that are already made.

Question put, "That the word 'An' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 353; Noes, 45.

Guy, J. C. Morrison
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Hales, Harold K.
Magnay, Thomas
Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tslde)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Hamilton. Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Hanley, Dennis A.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Salt, Edward W.


Harris, Percy A.
Marjoribanks, Edward
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Hartington, Marquess of
Martin, Thomas B.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Hartland, George A.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John M.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Millar, James Duncan
Savery, Samuel Servington


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Milne, Charles
Scone, Lord


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Milne. John Sydney Ward law-
Selley, Harry R,


Herbert, George (Rotherham)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Hillman, Dr. George B.
Molson, A. Harold Elsdale
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Holdsworth, Herbert
Moreing, Adrian C.
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-ln-F.)


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Mercian, Robert H.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Hore-Bellshs, Leslle
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hornby, Frank
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Smithers, Waldron


Horobin, Ian M.
Morrison, William Shephard
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Horsbrugh, Florence
Mulrhead, Major A. J.
Soper, Richard


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Munro, Patrick
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Ayimer
Normand, Wilfrfd Guild
Stanley, Hon. 0. F. C. (Westmorland)


Hurd, Percy A.
Nunn, William
Stones, James


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Storey, Samuel


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. (M'tr'se)
Ormiston, Thomas
Stourton, John J.


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G A.
Strauss, Edward A.


Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Strickland, Captain W. F.


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H,
Patrick, Colin M.
Stuart-Crichton, Lord C.


Jamieson, Douglas
Peake, Captain Osbert
Sueter, Rear-Admirnl Murray F.


Janner, Barnett
Pearson, William G.
Summeriby, Charles H.


Jennings, Roland
Peat, Charles U.
Sutclifle, Harold


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Penny, Sir George
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (Pd'gt'n,S.)


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Templeton, William P.


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Thorn, Lieut.-Colonel John Glbb


Ker, J. Campbell
Petherick, M.
Thomas, James P, L. (Hereford)


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomas, Major I B. (King's Norton)


Kirkpatrick. William M.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n,Bllston)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Pickering, Ernest H.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Knebworth, Viscount
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Lamb, Sir Joseph Qulnton
Pike, Cecil F.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Potter, John
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Law, Sir Alfred
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wallace, John (Duntermilne)


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Ward, Lt-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Leckle, J. A.
Pybus, Percy John
Ward, Irene Mary Bawick (Wallsend)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ralkes, Hector Victor Alpin
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Lees Jones John
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Lelghton, Major B. E. P.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Lonnox-Soyd, A. T.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Levy. Thomas
Ramsbotham, Herswaid
Wells, Sydney Richard


Liddall. Walter S.
Ramsden, E.
Weymouth, Viscount


Liewellin, Major John J.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Rea, Walter Russell
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Loiler, Captain J. do Vere
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Remer, John R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partlck)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Withers, Sir John James


McCorquodale, M. S.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Womersley, Waiter James


MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J, R. (Seaham)
Robinson, John Roland
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wood, Major M. McKenzle (Band)


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


McEwen, J. H. F.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wragg, Herbert


McKeag, William
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Young, Rt. Hon, Sir Hilton (S'v'noaka)


McKle, John Hamilton
Rothschild, James L. de



Maclay, Hon. Joseph paton
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Mr. Shakespeare and Lord Erskin


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)





NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Batey, Joseph
Daggar, George
Grundy, Thomas W.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Nermanton)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Buchanan, George
Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Hicks, Ernest George


Cape, Thomas
Edwards, Charles
Hirst, George Henry


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Jenkins, Sir William


Cove, William G.
Grenlell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
John, William




Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Kirkwood, David
Maxton, James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Milner, Major James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Lawson, John James
Parkinson, John Allen
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Logan, David Gilbert
Price, Gabriel
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Lunn, William
Salter, Dr. Alfred



McEntee, Valentine L.
Thorne, William James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


McGovern, John
Tinker, John Joseph
Mr. T. Groves and Mr. Cordon Macdonald.

Major MiLNER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, at the end, to add the words:
Provided that an Order made under this Section shall, if not previously revoked, cease to have effect on the termination of this Act.
7.30 p.m.
The Act, we were told, is to terminate in six months' time, and the purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that orders made under the Act shall terminate also at the same time. I am well aware that the right hon. Gentleman yesterday told us that with the lapse of the Act, the orders must lapse, but I respectfully submit that that may or may not be so. Orders have a separate operative effect, and it would be to the advantage of traders, importers and manufacturers to know the precise position, and for that reason it is very desirable to insert this Amendment in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman did not give any authority for his statement, and I hope that he will not think that I am pressing him unduly when I ask him to give us a more definite assurance on the subject, or perhaps he may accept the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has moved the Amendment is anxious that the operation of any Order-in-Council made in pursuance of the Act shall not continue after the six months, which is the period of the Act. That is also the intention of the Government, and perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be good enough to accept my assurance that it is effected by the terms of the Bill. I think I can satisfy him on the point, because if he will turn to the first Clause, at the top of page 2, he will observe that the powers given by the Bill are to be bound by order to apply the Act to articles of a particular class or description. If the Act has come to an end there is nothing upon which the Board can apply an order. If the Act has gone there is nothing upon which an order can be
made to hang. For that reason, it is quite clear that the Bill as drafted carries out the intention both of the hon. and gallant Member and of the Government. He may, perhaps, reply by asking why his Amendment should not be accepted. The reason is that this form is a perfectly common and indeed a universal form in Acts of a temporary nature. If such provision as he proposes were to be inserted in the Bill, it would throw doubt on a number of temporary Measures.

Sir S. CRIPPS: We are indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation, but I do not think he has quite explained the point which my hon. and gallant Friend had in mind. He will appreciate that under the first Clause the Board will not be able to make any fresh orders after the six months have elapsed. That is not what we are concerned with. The position is, an order having been made, let me say, on Monday next by the Board of Trade, it then, say 28 days later, or as soon as Parliament meets, comes before the House and a Resolution of the House revivifies the order and extends its period of operation beyond the 28 days which it has by virtue of being made by the Board of Trade. What we are concerned with is that such resolution shall not give an order power beyond the termination of the six months. I think that perhaps this is the way it can most conveniently be dealt with. The form of the resolution which is brought before the House when these orders are to be extended beyond the 28 days with the approval of the House should be such as to make it clear that they will terminate at the end of six months. I think that if he would assure us that the form of the resolution would be such as to say that the orders would terminate at the end of six months, we should not desire to press the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I appreciate the suggestion of the hon. and
learned Gentleman, but I cannot agree that it will be necessary to do what he proposes in the body of the resolution, because it would have the effect of doing the very thing I want to avoid, namely, throwing doubt on the interpretation of this form of Act which is a very common form in Acts of a temporary character. I think that I fully appreciate the reason of the hon. and gallant Member and the particular risk he wants to avoid. I merely referred to Clause 1 as indicating in my opinion that if the Act has disappeared, the effectiveness or validity of any order dependent upon the Act must also necessarily disappear. That is my firm opinion, and I hope that the Committee will be good enough to accept our assurance on the point.

Major MILNER: In view of the assurance which has been given by the hon. and learned Member, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir S. CRIPPS: We do not desire to cause any delay by dividing upon this question. We have expressed our opinion on the Second Reading regarding the whole Bill, and, as regards particular points, on Amendments, which have been before the Committee.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I do not wish to detain the Committee, because I recognise that this matter is urgent, but I should like to say to the President of the Board of Trade how unfortunate it is that pit-props and sleepers are classified in Class II and therefore do not come within the scope of the Bill. It is clear that pit-props and sleepers do not require any additional processes, and can be brought into use at once as pit-props and sleepers. It is rather strange, therefore, that we find them in Class II and not in Class III. The value of pit-props and sleepers imported into this country in the first 10 months of the year amounted to some £3,500,000. A good deal of that timber could have been supplied at home, and what could not have been supplied at home might very well have been supplied from Canada. I am told that there are great quantities
of deals, battens and boards coming into this country many of which are used just as they are for packing, construction or hoardings. I have been told by someone well qualified to give an opinion that there is more imported timber in the country than we can use, and yet our greatest supplier, Soviet Russia, is said to be pressing us to take more from her than we have been taking in the last year or two.
Therefore, I ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is not possible to reconsider the classification of these various forms of timber, because they are of importance. I cannot see how anybody can maintain that a pit-prop or a sleeper is in any way a raw material of anything else, and it is difficult to maintain this in regard to deals, battens and boards. I am told that deals, battens and boards constitute the greater part of the very large quantity of timber which we have been purchasing in the last year or so from Soviet Russia. In 1929–30, we imported hewn and sawn timber from that country to the value of nearly £8,000,000. Therefore, if any limitations could be put upon those imports, they would have a very considerable effect on the question of the trade balance, and undoubtedly would cause a stimulus to production at home and to the Empire which is very badly needed.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My Noble Friend will observe that the operation of the Act is restricted to Class III, and I am afraid that it will not be possible to extend the list of articles to Class II without going outside the scope of the Measure. The fact that she has brought before us this afternoon is one we shall certainly keep in mind, especially when we make a more complete and a more extended review of our industry as a whole.

Mr. CAPE: I submit to the President of the Board of Trade that we require the very best timber possible in our mines. Unless we received a guarantee that British timber was in such a condition that it would prove of the utmost safety in the mines, we should have to oppose the proposal of the Noble Lady. I ask the President of the Board of Trade, before he attempts to include anything of that kind in the Bill, to consult the different sections of the mining industry. I am sure he understands that it is desirable to have the greatest safety
in mines. We had an experience some time ago of raw timber coming into the mines. Before the right hon. Gentleman contemplates any change, we hope that he will consult the two sections of the mining industry.

Mr. TINKER: I should like to emphasise the point raised by my hon. Friend. Probably the Noble Lady is not aware of what she would really be doing if her proposal were carried out. I admire her intention, but, after all, we have to rely upon the opinion of our own men. This timber, we are told, is the best possible timber in the interests of the safety of the men. The question of steel sleepers—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that we are now getting rather far away from Clause 1. It is obvious that no timber can be dealt with under this Bill.

Mr. TINKER: I would point out that had the President of the Board of Trade not followed up the point raised by the Noble Lady by saying that he would consider the matter, I should not have intervened. I think that this is an indication of what might happen, and I wish to raise my voice in protest and say what must be expected from this side if the President of the Board of Trade proceeds to do anything.

Mr. PRICE: This is a very important point. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that whatever consideration he may give to the question, nothing in the nature of duties on timber from Russia will be decided until a further consultation has taken place?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am sure the hon. Gentleman opposite need not be apprehensive about that. It will not be included in the powers that are contemplated.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Charge of Customs duties on articles to which this Act applies.)

Mr. HICKS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that no articles shall be deemed to be Empire products unless at least seventy-five per cent. of the extent to which they have been manufactured is
the result of labour within the British Empire, anything to the contrary in the said Sub-section (1) notwithstanding.
I am inclined to believe that the Amendment will receive very sympathetic consideration from the other side of the Committee. The history of the preferences has been brought up on a number of occasions and at the various colonial conferences, in particular in 1907 and again in 1917, when the Imperial War Conference passed the following Resolution:
The time has arrived when all possible encouragement should be given to the development of Imperial resources, and especially to making the Empire independent of other countries in respect of food supplies, raw materials and essential industries. With these objects in view this Conference expresses itself in favour of

(1) The principle that each part of the Empire, having due regard to the interests of our Allies, shall give specially favourable treatment and facilities to the produce and manufactures of other parts of the Empire;
(2) Arrangements by which intending emigrants from the United Kingdom may be induced to settle in countries under the British flag."

Imperial Preference was, I understand, actually introduced into the tariffs of this country by Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1919, which was intended to prohibit by regulation what proportion of the value of goods resulting from labour within the British Empire should entitle the goods to be deemed to have been manufactured in the British Empire, and to make an Order, in the case of any class of goods manufactured to a considerable extent in the British Empire, from materials not wholly grown or produced in the Empire, directing that the preferential rebate should be allowed only to such proportion of those goods as corresponded to the proportion of dutiable material used in the manufacture, which had been grown or produced in the Empire.
During the Debate last night the Solicitor-General in the late Government asked the President of the Board of Trade to give him a reply in regard to the question of the amount of British labour that would be employed or embodied in the commodities that would be regarded as coming within the scope of the Bill. He cited one particular case, that of the Kodaks, which, although supplied to us from Canada, were, as to
75 per cent., manufactured in the United States. In other words, Canada has imported from the United States 76 per cent. of the manufacture of this commodity, and 25 per cent. of it was added by Canadian labour, and it was then regarded as Empire goods. Therefore, we are desirous of having embodied in this Bill a very definite instruction that, so far as Empire goods are concerned, we should not merely have regard to the fact that there is a label upon the goods coming from a particular country. That is not what we mean or what we wish, and I hope hon. Members on the opposite side will not misunderstand us. Not only do we want the label, but we want the embodiment of the labour. In order to make the matter clear, we ask that at least 75 per cent. of the labour should be embodied in those commodities, in order that they might be classified as Empire products.
I hope that we shall be able to get a guarantee not only as to the British labour employed on the production, but as to British standards as well, in regard to trade union rates of pay, hours of labour and other conditions. Goods coming from a part of our Empire which has labour conditions not comparable with what we enjoy in this country, ought not to be used in ways unfavourable to labour in this country. I am certain that hon. Gentlemen on the other side have an excellent opportunity to express themselves in no unmeasured terms. If the President of the Board of Trade would like to amend this Amendment by altering the figure to 100 per cent., I will withdraw the Amendment. In the absence of that, I am demonstrating my modesty in asking him to accept the figure of 75 per cent. I am sure that the fairness and practicability of this proposal ought to appeal to every Member of the Committee. The President of the Board of Trade having shown his sympathy with the last Amendment put forward, I hope he will respond to the appeal that I am making.

Mr. TINKER: I wish to support this Amendment. Hon. Members will notice that it deals with articles that are Empire products. Last night the President of the Board of Trade mentioned that this matter was under discussion. I listened very carefully to the Minister in
his reply, and I admire the way in which he dealt with the matter. In 15 minutes he cleared away all the questions that had been put by all who had taken part in the Debate. A second point that impressed me was this: I have always looked upon him as an iceberg, but last night he got heated. Why, I could not say. It is said that when a man gets heated it is because someone has stirred him to the quick. It must have been someone on the Front Bench who had done that, but I admired that, because I do not like to see a man a mere Robot. Last night the right hon. Gentleman showed a certain amount of feeling.
This Amendment is for the purpose of trying to stop goods coming through the Dominions, or parts of the Empire, when they have not been produced largely by British labour. We want to protect the quality of articles in the Dominions. It is well known that unscrupulous persons attempt to get through the Dominions goods that they could not get through in the ordinary way, and that are not produced by British labour. It is for the purpose of preventing that, that we wish to include the figure of 75 per cent. Hon. Members on the other side ought readily to accept our proposition. Their idea is that this tariff is to give our Dominions a much better chance than they have had in the past. We are prepared to help on those lines, and we urge that hon. Members should accept this proposal. There may be some other points of view. Hon. Members may say, "It cannot be done." We want to know. We want a fuller explanation from the President of the Board of Trade than he gave last night. It was not satisfactory to us. This Amendment is designed to get to know what is the real position. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will tell us why he cannot accept the Amendment, which seems to us to be a fair and reasonable one.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The proposal which 18 embodied in the Amendment would disturb the arrangement that has been in force for a considerable time. In the Finance Act, 1919, provision was made that the proportion of value of manufactured goods which must be the result of labour in the British Empire, in order to entitle such goods to be regarded as Empire products, shall be prescribed by
regulations made by the Board of Trade. Thereupon, regulations were made by the Board of Trade which have remained in force ever since 1919. They provide that the proportion prescribed in the case of articles is 25 per cent., with only one exception, which, I think, comes under the heading of optical glass. That 25 per cent. which was under discussion, and has been under discussion, more than once. I could not make an alteration in a matter of this kind without having conversations with the Dominions. In these circumstances, I hope hon. Members will not press their Amendment.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has not appreciated the vast difference between the present Bill and that to which he has referred, and under which the 25 per cent. rule was made. Preferences were being made in comparatively small commodities, and there was no vast difference between goods coming from a foreign country and goods coming from a Dominion. It was a matter of degree only. The present Bill is dealing with prohibition, and if you are going to give free entry to goods from a Dominion as against the prohibition from foreign countries, you have an entirely different set of circumstances. In this case, by persisting in 25 per cent., it means allowing every kind of manufacturer in America to send his goods to Canada, where they are finished, and then to import them into this country as finished articles. I cited the example of the Kodak because it was a case in which the Board of Trade took special measures which caused a good deal of trouble with Canada. It was found necessary, because of the wholesale evasion that took place under the 25 per cent. rule, to make the special regulation. We submit to the right hon. Gentleman that where you are dealing with a prohibited Bill, and not merely a Bill which is putting on Customs Duties, you are merely opening a path for foreign goods lightly finished in some Dominion, which I am certain is not the desire of the right hon. Gentleman or anyone in this Committee to allow.
If the Bill is left without any special regulation as regards Dominion produce, whatever it may be, it will be necessary, if an alteration is desired later, to alter the 1919 Act, which will mean that we
shall be unable to differentiate between this Act and the 1919 Act. If we say 75 per cent. in this Measure, it will have to be 75 per cent. in the 1919 Act, because that is the procedure laid down in the Bill. Unless there is procedure laid down in the Bill, we shall be anchored to whatever is suitable to the 1919 Act. We submit that, seeing that the Bill is aimed at such an entirely different object, prohibition, there must be some safeguarding certainty which is going to prevent wholesale evasion. If it is not done at this moment, it never can be done.
We are not taking up this point in any way as a party matter. We ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be wise to take this opportunity to put in any figure he likes, we do not care as long as it is really substantial, something more than half, before it is too late, before foreign countries discover that there is a path open for wholesale evasion of the prohibition which it is intended to lay down in this Bill.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR: It is not often that I find myself in agreement with arguments advanced from the opposite benches. I believe that the argument advanced on this occasion is perfectly sound. If we are to allow in, free of duty, goods which are, as in the case of Canada, coming from the United States, I think it is quite futile to assume that we are giving preferential treatment in that case to our Dominion. In fact, we are giving a means of escape to those on whom we wish to impose the duty. While I do not wish to press my view at the moment, I hope the President of the Board of Trade will give very serious attention to this matter between now and Report and, if possible, devise some words which will give effect to the proposal.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Like the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) it is not often that I see eye to eye with hon. Members of the Opposition. I congratulate them on their unwillingness to allow things to come into this country which are produced under conditions which they would not permit in this country; but that is a proposition which cannot be applied to one case only. Still, if hon. Members above
the Gangway are prepared to admit that goods made under the conditions of labour which would not be permitted in this country shall not be allowed to enter we shall have gone a long way towards agreement. I am prepared to accept converts any time. It is always better to come in even if you are a little late than not come in at all. I appreciate the point of view put forward by the President of the Board of Trade. He may find a little difficulty in accepting the proposed Amendment, but I hope he will realise that we do not want these goods to come into this country by subterfuges. We do not want goods which have been made to a large extent by any foreigner, American or anybody else, to come into this country through one of our Dominions, as Dominion stuff. I hope the President will consider this matter between now and Report. I am not hopeful that anything very much can be done; and it must be remembered that this Bill is only to last for six months. I should be averse to passing this Measure without some such provision as this, if it was going to be permanent legislation, but in the case of a Measure which has to be got through quickly it is not always possible to put in every safeguard you want. At the same time, I hope something on this line will be done later on. We do not want goods which have been produced in foreign countries to come into this country in this way.

Mr. AMERY: I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade will be profoundly grateful to the hon. Members of the Opposition in desiring to strengthen his Measure. There is a great deal to be said for a reconsideration, ultimately, of what should be the minimum qualification for preference in the Empire. In some Dominions the figure is fixed at 50 per cent., and there is a good deal to be said for making the qualification for Empire preference here 50 per cent. I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade will give that matter every consideration. But we are dealing at this

Division No. 11.]
AYES.
[8.9 p.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)


Batey, Joseph
Cove, William G.
Graham, D. M (Lanark, Hamilton)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Daggar, George
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Buchanan, George
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Grundy, Thomas W.


Cape, Thomas
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

moment not with the fiscal legislation which we hope to see very shortly, but with a purely temporary emergency Measure, the duration of which is nominally six months. I think it would be a shock to the House of Commons if anything like that time should intervene before our tariff is in operation. I should imagine that it is only a question of a few weeks, and I do not think that during those few weeks there is going to be a vast transference of industries for finishing these goods in the Dominions and sending them here. Time and space preclude it in the case of every Dominion except perhaps the Irish Free State and Canada.

I doubt whether there is time for foreign industries to set up the necessary finishing factories to add the extra 25 per cent. to certain types of article before they are sent into Great Britain. I admit that if there was time enough, and if the inducement was high enough, something of that sort might happen; and in that connection I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not view his Measure in the same way as the late Solicitor-General views it, as a Measure to introduce prohibitive duties. I imagine that the 100 per cent. represents the maximum figure for dealing with certain extreme cases, and I hope that we shall get the reduction in our adverse trade balance by import duties fairly widely spread rather than by picking out a few instances for actual prohibition. While it is desirable between now and February that the President of the Board of Trade should consider the whole question as to what should constitute preference, I feel no inclination to press now for a change in the old-established proportion which has regulated preference and which I think it would be undesirable to change without consultation with the Dominions. Obviously, there is not time to do that.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 45; Noes, 306.

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lunn, William
Thorne, William James


Hicks, Ernest George
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Tinker, John Joseph


Hirst, George Henry
McEntee, Valentine L.
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Jenkins, Sir William
McGovern, John
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


John, William
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Maxton, James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Kirkwood, David
Milner, Major James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon, George
Parkinson, John Allen



Leonard, William
Price, Gabriel
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Logan, David Gilbert
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Groves.




NOES.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Crossley, A. C.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)


Alexander, Sir William
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Denville, Alfred
Jamleson, Douglas


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Dickie, John P.
Jennings, Roland


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Donner, P. W.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Doran, Edward
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Apsley, Lord
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Aske, Sir William Robert
Drewe, Cedric
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Duggan, Hubert John
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.


Atkinson, Cyril
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Knebworth, Viscount


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. B.
Dunglass, Lord
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Eales, John Frederick
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Eastwood, John Francis
Law, Sir Alfred


Bainiel, Lord
Eden, Robert Anthony
Law. Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Leckie, J. A.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Eimley, Viscount
Lees-Jones, John


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Ayiesbury)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Beaumont, R. E. B. (Portsm'th, Centr'l)
Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard
Levy, Thomas


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Liddall, Walter S.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Llewellin, Major John J.


Bernays, Robert
Everard, W. Lindsay
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Birchall, Major Sir John Denman
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Borodale, Viscount
Fraser, Captain Ian
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)


Boulton, W. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Fuller, Captain A. E. G.
McEwen, J. H. F.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Ganzoni, Sir John
McKeag, William


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gibson, Charles Granville
McKie, John Hamilton


Boyce, H. Leslie
Glossop, C. W. H.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Briant, Frank
Goldie, Noel B,
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Broadbent, Colonel John
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Magnay, Thomas


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gower, Sir Robert
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Burghley, Lord
Greene, William P. C.
Marjorlbanks, Edward


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Martin, Thomas B.


Burnett, John George
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John M.


Caine, G. R. Hall
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Millar, James Duncan


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Milne, Charles


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hanley, Dennis A.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hartland, George A.
Molson, A. Harold Eisdale


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Morgan, Robert H.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Herbert, George (Rotherham)
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hillman, Dr. George B.
Munro, Patrick


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.


Chotzner, Alfred James
Holdsworth, Herbert
Nathan, Major H. L.


Clarke, Frank
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Cooke, James D.
Hornby, Frank
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


Cooper, A. Duff
Horobin, Ian M.
Nunn, William


Copeland, Ida
Horsbrugh, Florence
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Howard, Tom Forrest
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ormiston, Thomas


Cranborne, Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Patrick, Colin M.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Pearson, William G.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hurd, Percy A.
Peat, Charles U.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Penny, Sir George


Cross, R. H.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. (M'tr'se)
Perkins, Walter R. D.




Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)
Templeton, William P.


Petherick, M.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Thorn, Lieut.-Colonel John Glbb


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Pickering, Ernest H.
Salt, Edward W.
Thompson, Luke


Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Pike, Cecil F.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Potter, John
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Savery, Samuel Servington
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Pybus, Percy John
Scone, Lord
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Raikes, Hector Victor Alpin
Selley, Harry R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Ramsay, T. B. w. (Western Isles)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Warrender, Sir victor A. G.


Ramsbotham, Herswald
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Ramsden, E.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Rea, Walter Russell
Smithers, Waldron
Wells, Sydney Richard


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Weymouth, Viscount


Reid, James S. C. (Sterling)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Remer, John R.
Soper, Richard
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Withers, Sir John James


Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Womersley, Walter James


Robinson, John Roland
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff)


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Stones, James
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Storey, Samuel
Wragg, Herbert


Ross, Ronald D.
Stourton, John J.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Strauss, Edward A.



Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Strickland, Captain W. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Runge, Norah Cecil
Summersby, Charles H.
Lord Erskine and Mr. Harcourt Johnstone.


Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Sutcliffe, Harold



Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (Pd'gt'n, S.)

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, at the end, to insert the words:
(3) No articles delivered in pursuance of a contract or order entered into or given before the fifteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, shall be chargeable with duty under this Act.
There is a very important practical point involved in the Amendment, and I hope that this time we shall get some answer from the Government, because we know that, whatever may be the Government's feelings with regard to sacred-ness of contracts made with working men, they are very impressed with the sacred-ness of business contracts. The point here concerns the position of those persons who have entered into contracts for the importation of foreign goods. I should preface my remarks by saying that under the present law it is not a crime to import goods from abroad, and that quite a large number of persons in the City of London and elsewhere have habitually got their living by importing goods from abroad and selling them, and that the custom has been in many cases to make contracts for those goods a considerable time ahead.
Instances have been given to me of buyers 'who have gone round on the Continent and have placed orders for goods to be delivered for the winter season. They have entered into those contracts at prices, and the goods are to be brought to this country. Some of them are
actually in transit and others are about to be sent here. On this side, too, they have entered into contracts to sell those goods to retailers. A sudden imposition of taxation is going to be placed on those goods. The question is, who is to pay that impost? It is obvious that, the contract having been concluded, the impost will not be paid by the foreigner. The importers cannot recover it, because in many cases the goods have been delivered or they have to take delivery of them, and they have contracted to hand them over to retailers in this country. They are, therefore, going to be saddled with a loss, and I am informed by persons engaged in this trade that the result is going to be very heavy loss and that it will probably mean bankruptcy. I know that Sir Josiah Stamp, who is one of the advisers of the Government, said that it would be a good thing for the country to have some healthy bankruptcies. We are going to have a number in the City of London if the Bill goes forward in its present form.
Let me give some instances. There are the goods ordered at the Leipzic Fair. They were ordered in March and are due for delivery at Christmas. What is going to happen with regard to those goods? There is now a very large consignment of goods that left Japan on 23rd September and is due in London next week. What is going to happen in that case? It may be said that this is
a risk, that importers have to take, the kind of risk that always occurs when there is a change in fiscal duties, in the case, say, of the importation of sugar. In that case the importer may find that the duties have been put up. But the point is, first of all, that the imposition of these duties is something quite out of the common run as regards time. The persons who in the summer contracted for these goods did not anticipate the political events that have occurred in this country, and we must not blame them, for they were only business men. Even the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), and, I think, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) did not anticipate this, because they had arranged long autumn lecturing tours in the United States. Therefore we must not blame business men for lack of foresight. They could not expect that there would be a change of fiscal policy at this time of the year.
The second point is that, whereas, in the ordinary case such duties are within a fairly narrow compass and have always in the past been intended just to raise revenue, we have it from the spokesman of the Government that this is not really a tax for raising revenue at all. In fact, they rather resent the suggestion that this is taxing the subject. They say, "No, it is nothing like that. What we are after is not that the tax should be paid, but that the goods should be prohibited." What is going to happen in regard to these goods that have been ordered, the goods that are in transit and the goods that are in bond in this country is that they are not going to be saleable at all. Where it has been a case previously of putting an extra 2d. on tea or sugar, or whatever the article might be, the goods could be sold. The prices of those commodities in this country were to be raised and the intention was that those taxes should be paid by the consumer. But that is not the intention of this Bill. The intention is that these goods should not be sold at all. Unless we have some provision such as this Amendment proposes, the bonded warehouses of London are going to be crammed with unsaleable goods. Merchants are going to be landed with goods which they have bought and paid for or for which they have contracted, in
many cases, to pay for at certain rates, and they will have to take delivery of those goods and will have to bear the burden of this tax.
Let us remember that this tax may be anything up to 100 per cent. The goods may be of any kind because the peculiarity of this Bill is that it is not entirely protective. We are told that its main object is the prevention of importation; that it is part of the Government policy for redressing the balance of trade and therefore it is not a question necessarily of goods that are being brought here in competition. It is a question of excessive importation. The policy of the Government is to keep down foreign imports. Then what is going to be the position of quite a large number of firms in this country? I have it from responsible traders in the City of London that they do not know exactly what is going to happen, but the fear is that there are going to be a large number of bankruptcies as a result of procedure such as I have indicated.
In this Amendment I have inserted the date 15th November. That would be in accordance with the ordinary practice when dealing with taxes of this nature, namely, that you do not impose the tax until notice has been given to the persons concerned that the tax is going to be imposed. Therefore I have put in a rather late date. If the right hon. Gentleman considers that 15th November is too late a date I am willing to accept an earlier date, but let us remember that these goods which are to be taxed are being brought into this country in pursuance of contracts made in June and July, before there was any possible contemplation of such a Measure as this being passed. I ask that this matter should be seriously considered. I do not think that anyone can say that this trade is illegitimate in any way. I have no doubt that most of the importers are loyal supporters of the National Government. The mere fact that they find themselves ruined only means that they and many others will be ruined by their rash action in. voting for the National Government, but, in their particular case, we see at once the effect of rash and hurried legislation which plunges a rough hand into the complicated business of the
City of London and the great trading centres of this country.
8.30 p.m.
This proposal is going to have repercussions all through the business world, and as the representative of a riverside constituency I may point out that it is going to have very serious repercussions on the work of the Port of London and at the docks and wharves. You are going to have what you had previously at the time of the Safeguarding Duties—a hold-up of the work on the riverside. I should not be in order in elaborating the general effect of this tax, or in drawing attention to the fact that, previously, the whole Port of London was held up for three days while a search was being made for dolls' eyes. The particular point clearly is that, unless you have some provision of the kind I propose, then as a result of this legislation, the bonded warehouses are going to be crowded with goods which cannot be used, and the result will be to intensify the effect which other parts of this Bill are going to have. That is to say, a great deal of our trade will go to Antwerp and Rotterdam. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary will recognise that this is an important practical point and will see that they ought to take whatever steps they can to ensure that numbers of traders are not going to be ruined by this rushed legislation.

Major NATHAN: The Mover of the Amendment has I think made his statement in terms of studied moderation. On more than one occasion I have heard the Lord President of the Council quote with approval a dictum of the late Lord Melchett to the effect that a business man could conduct an industry under almost any fiscal system, as long as it was certain. This Bill, without the Amendment which has been proposed from the benches opposite, will not merely involve the business of this country in a state of uncertainty but will reduce it to a state of chaos. I wish to bring to the notice of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary certain matters which have come to me in the ordinary way of business relating to questions arising under this Bill.
I deal first with the question of contract pure and simple and I put it in this way. Many merchants have entered into obligations towards foreign exporters in
every quarter of the globe for the purchase of goods for import into this country, not merely for sale and consumption in this country, but for introduction here, to be the object of some manufacturing process, and then to be sold either here or abroad. The President of the Board of Trade, in making his statement in relation to this matter on the Address last Monday, remarked upon the very narrow margin of profit that exists in so many industries and that makes all the difference between profit and loss. It needs a very small duty, in a large number of cases, to mark that difference, but under the circumstances of this Bill, without this Amendment, the English importer who, in perfect good faith, without being able in any way to anticipate the introduction of such a Bill as this or the crisis which alone justifies it, may, months ago or indeed two or three years ago, have entered into forward contracts for delivery over a period or into similar contracts for sale over a, period. Such things happen in the ordinary daily conduct of business, not merely in the City of London, but in this country as a whole.
The imposition suddenly of this duty will have a marked and crippling effect upon the conduct of his business. He does not know where he is from one moment to the next. This is not a case where there was long warning of the proposal to introduce a radical change into our fiscal policy. The change is introduced at very short notice, the Bill is rushed through the House of Commons, and the charging Orders are becoming operative within a week of the first day when the mere mention of this Bill, before it was even introduced, was made in this House and in the country at large. The trade of this country cannot be conducted in those circumstances, and it may well be that it will involve a considerable number of cases of bankruptcy.
I wish to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to another aspect of the matter, which is perhaps even more germane to the problems with which we are confronted. The object of the Bill is to exclude certain imports called abnormal imports, and for that purpose a duty ranging up to 100 per cent. is to be imposed upon those objects. The importer has one of two alternatives before him. He may take the goods and pay the duty, in which case he is in the position of having increased the cost of
the article which he had hoped to sell at a profit or, it may be, which he had already sold at a price, and instead of making a profit, he makes a loss. What does the Parliamentary Secretary think will happen as regards that loss? It is a deduction from the profits of the importer. It will thereby reduce, by the amount of the loss, the profits upon which Income Tax and Super-tax would otherwise be payable, and, by reason of that fact, it will gravely prejudice the Revenue, already in a position of jeopardy, and, if there be an adverse Revenue balance, it will increase that adverse Revenue balance.
Let me assume that the importer refuses to take the goods. He is then liable to an action for damages for breach of contract. I will assume that it is an English contract—and I am using that term in the technical sense that it is a contract enforceable in the courts of this country—and he is sued in this country for damages by the foreign exporter. He will have no defence to the proceedings, damages will be awarded against him, and the amount of those damages in relation to the subject matter of the action may be very large. Those damages will be awarded against him in sterling, but he will have to pay them to the foreign exporter in the currency of the country of that foreign exporter; or the foreign exporter, having received them in sterling, will have to transfer them into the currency of his own country. That means the sale of sterling, which means that the already precarious position of sterling in the foreign exchange markets of the world will be made even more precarious.
I should have thought that the dangers involved by this Measure, and its repercussions upon the Revenue in relation to taxation, and upon the exchange in relation to damages, would in themselves have been formidable arguments in favour of the Amendment. I appreciate that, as a result of the course of the General Election campaign and of the result of the General Election, there may have been some importers who, immediately prior to the introduction of the Bill, but after the General Election, and after its course became clear, may have given orders to an unusual extent for imports of goods from abroad, but that
cannot apply to a date as far back, let me say, as the dissolution of the last Parliament; and I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to make this concession, and to accept this Amendment with the modification that, instead of the date being the 15th November—which was, I imagine, the date of the introduction of the Bill, though I have not checked that date—it should be made either the 15th October or, for that matter, the 15th September. That will not overcome the difficulties, but it will mitigate them, and it will mitigate also the evils, the disastrous effects, which will ensue to this country in its most critical aspects of Revenue and exchange if something like this Amendment is not accepted by the Government.
The Parliamentary Secretary may very well answer me by saying that that would be contrary to the usual practice of the Customs authorities. He may say that when, in the ordinary event, under normal conditions, contracts are made, those who enter into them take the risk of whether or not a tariff will be imposed; but these are not normal circumstances, nor is this a tariff in any ordinary acceptation of the term. The object of the Bill is not to bring goods in subject to a tariff; the object is to keep them out altogether. This Bill is unusual to the point of being unique and, indeed, revolutionary, in the conditions of its introduction, in the manner in which it has been pressed through the House, and in the provisions which it contains. The unique character of the circumstances relating to the Bill and the circumstances in which the country finds itself at this juncture, which indeed is the only justification for this Bill, would justify the Government at this time in applying a rather different usage than that which is adopted in the normal course.
There are great quantities of goods which are already physically in this country, though in law perhaps they are not, namely, goods in bonded warehouses and lying there uncleared. What is the position to be with regard to those goods? They have been brought to this country, unloaded and placed in bonded warehouses, it may be recently, or during the past few months, or even some years ago. They are in the bonded warehouses with the obligation upon the owner to pay the
applicable Customs duty when he wishes to remove them, and he can keep them there as long as he wishes, provided that he pays the prescribed amount of dues. This is a practical question which I had put to me in the City of London by men of business whom it affects most closely.
What is to happen in regard to those goods in bonded warehouses? Are they to be subjected to this additional duty? It is quite true that goods in bond in the case of an ordinary tariff are liable to bear any additional tariff, and are also susceptible to the advantage of any reduction in the tariff. But this is not a tariff in the ordinary sense of the term. The object of the Bill is not to impose a tariff, but to keep goods out. These goods are already here. What does the Parliamentary Secretary propose to say about that? I hope that he will make some such concession as I have indicated with regard to contracts, and that he will look with the utmost diligence, as I am sure he will, into the highly complex question of goods in bonded warehouses. I have pointed out the difficulties that arise in regard to contracts; the difficulties in regard to goods in bonded warehouses are no less great, and I hope that the Government will make some concession in this regard.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) moved this Amendment with studied moderation, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) has supported it with restrained indignation. What is the proposal of the Amendment? Here we have a Bill, the object of which is to restrict abnormal importation. My hon. Friend moved an Amendment which suggests that goods should come in in spite of our desire to restrict them, and not only come in, but come in duty free because at some previous date an order has been placed for these goods. How are the Customs authorities to verify whether an order has been placed? The proposal of my hon. Friend would of course nullify the whole object of the Bill; not only would it do that, but it would nullify and render anomalous the whole of our Customs procedure. What my hon. Friend is proposing is an abrogation of the Customs procedure not only of this country, but of all other countries.
When foreigners put a tax upon us, as the French did upon our goods the other day, they have no regard to previous contracts; nor do we when we come to our budgetary proposals, or when we institute taxation in any other way, have regard to anything that has been arranged between the importer and a seller previous to the imposition of the tax. It would be quite unworkable to do it. It is not done in any other case, and my hon. Friend has not made out a sufficiently strong argument to make an exception in this Bill in what is the current established procedure. After all, we have fewer tariffs in this country, and we have changed them less frequently, than in any other country, and our importers are better treated than importers in any other country in the world.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-East Bethnal Green drew a very sorrowful picture of the ruination of the importer. As no taxes have been imposed yet, it would be difficult to justify the accuracy of the picture he has painted. As no duties have been imposed, he does not know whether duties will have the serious effect that he contemplates. If importers have made longstanding contracts for periods which he describes as being as long as three years, and they have not had the common sense to put provisions in their contracts allowing them the opportunity of being released in the event of tariffs being imposed, they have been very badly advised. Certainly they have not been advised by my hon. and gallant Friend, because he would not allow any of his clients to enter into a three years' contract to import goods without protecting them in every possible way. Having described the plight of the importer, he goes on to say that the position of sterling in the world may be compromised—

Major NATHAN: I said adversely affected—

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: But it would not be so adversely affected as will be the population and industries of this country if we continue to allow this abnormal importation. Though the interests of a few importers may have a small injustice done to them, we have a prior duty to regard the interests of the
country as a whole. It is for that reason that I feel compelled to resist the Amendment.

Mr. McENTEE: I regret that the President of the Board of Trade is not present to hear the arguments that have been used. I remember a statement made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) yesterday, that the President would no more pass a bad argument than he would a bad coin. I think that the implication of that is that the right hon. Gentleman would not do anything that was harsh or unjust, and I feel that had he been in his place, he might have taken a different view with regard to the Amendment from that taken by the Parliamentary Secretary. A grave injustice will be done to a large number of people who have made contracts believing that this country, having been Free Trade for a great number of years, would remain so, and believing politicians who have up to now sat on the Front Bench when they have said that Free Trade was the only policy that would safeguard the interests of this country. Having listened to all those speeches, and probably believing them, they would have come to the conclusion, when making their contracts, that their interests were perfectly safe in the hands of right hon. Gentlemen like the present President of the Board of Trade.
The British have always been looked upon abroad as people whose word was their bond, and when they have made contracts to import goods over a period of years the people abroad expect that those contracts will be honoured and the money paid. If this Amendment is not accepted—and I am hopeful even yet that it may be—many men who have entered into contracts, and who are not rich men but in comparatively poor circumstances, will find it extremely difficult to pay for the goods they have ordered. Even if they are in a position to borrow money, that borrowing may for a number of years to come leave them on the verge of bankruptcy; and if they cannot borrow because they cannot offer the security demanded they will be compelled to break their contracts, and in that case become subject to an action at law which may ruin them. Perhaps by making sacrifices they can find the money for the goods at
the price which they have agreed to pay; but then they may also be in the position of having made contracts with retailers in this country. If they sell to the retailer ruin stares them in the face, and if they do not sell to the retailer they will be breaking their contract with him, and again will be liable to an action at law. It should be remembered that, after all, the importer is a British subject. The British Government can impose taxes only on British subjects. It is amusing to hear Members talking sometimes about taxing the foreigner. No tax can be levied till the goods arrive in this country, and the importer is a British subject. The hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) raised the question of bonded goods, and I am rather sorry the Parliamentary Secretary made no reply to his point. It is an extremely important point, and has been brought to my notice as well as to that of the hon. and gallant Member.
9.0 p.m.
Another point to which I wish to draw attention is that this will be a variable tax. People will not know from month to month, or week to week, or even from day to day, what the tax is going to be. It may be 20 per cent. one day, and a week hence it may be raised to 40 or 50 per cent., or even higher. What is to be the position of men who have entered into contracts under such fluctuating conditions? When the 20 per cent. tax is put on they may make an arrangement with the persons from whom they have bought the goods or with those to whom they are selling them, only to find that within a week or a month the tax has been doubled or trebled, and the arrangements have to be made all over again. We ought to show common fairness and common honesty in dealing with these people who, after all, are British subjects. We cannot tax the foreigner; we are taxing our own people upon goods for which they have paid, or which they will be called upon to pay for when they arrive. It is an unfair imposition on our people, and cannot do much good to the Government or those supporting the Bill. I still hope that further consultation between the Parliamentary Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade may produce a concession which will prevent such a great in-
justice as is being done to our people by the introduction of revolutionary methods which nobody could have contemplated even a few weeks ago.

Mr. RAMSDEN: I was very glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary announce that it was his intention to resist this Amendment. This Measure will mean that the foreigner is to get a dose of the medicine to which he has treated our own people on so many occasions. I have some knowledge of the export trade, and very frequently indeed foreign Governments, when imposing tariffs, take exactly the same action as we are proposing to take, that is to say, they put up the tariff barrier without any notice whatever. This is the only practical way in which to deal with the abnormal imports from which we are suffering.

Mr. HARRIS: If it were a matter of the foreigner being given a dose of his own medicine, I should agree entirely with the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden). It may sound uncharitable, but I think there is much to be said for our giving him something back. Unfortunately, the point made by my hon. and gallant colleague the Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) is a different one. The case he raised did not concern the foreigner who dumps stuff into our country, but the case of our own nationals who, foolishly perhaps, very unpatriotic-ally, but, still, in the course of business, have made contracts which they will have to carry out. When the contract was made the present emergency was, probably, quite unforeseen, but the importer is compelled under pains and penalties to take the balance of the goods which he has contracted to buy. It is for such cases that my hon. and gallant Friend asked sympathy from the Parliamentary Secretary. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is of a sympathetic nature. Also, he is new to his job, and I am sure he is anxious to learn, and perhaps he will realise that there is no more experienced and able international lawyer, no one with better knowledge of international business relationships, than my hon. and gallant Friend. When he puts forward constructive proposals they deserve, I think, a little more sympathetic consideration than the few brief words
with which the Parliamentary Secretary brushed them aside.
This is not an ordinary tariff. If this were an ordinary tariff such as the French or the Germans or the Americans impose there would be a lot to be said for the Parliamentary Secretary's argument. Traders would have to treat it as an ordinary commonplace business risk. But this is not a tariff at all. This Bill, as I understand it, is to deal with abnormal imports, with forestalling. This is not a tariff at all, but it is a proposal to prohibit imports coming into this country in abnormal quantities, and it makes an allowance for a 100 per cent. tariff. I remember that a prohibition of this kind was suggested during the War, and, although we were told that it might be possible in law to carry out that object, it would not be possible to prohibit completely those goods which would infringe the most-favoured-nation clause. This Bill is tantamount to imposing prohibition.
The President of the Board of Trade was asked how much revenue he expected this Bill would bring in, and he told the House that it was not intended to bring in revenue. What we say is that if there has been abnormal importations, or speculation, or an attempt to rush goods into this country in anticipation of the tariffs, we do not want to handicap or limit the Government's powers in any way; but we do say that where there is an ordinary contract, and where it is clear that there has been no attempt to forestall, then the same protection should be given to those contracts that was applied in similar circumstances during the War. During the War, to achieve this object, we adopted a system of licences, but that was subjected to abuse, and I do not think that a system of licences would meet this particular case. I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade, and the Parliamentary Secretary, desire to make this a workable Measure to achieve their purpose, but I do not want the Government, in a time of trade disorganisation, to inflict needless hardships upon business men. Where a good case can be made out for these importations there should be something provided on the Report stage to deal with them.
This country is known throughout the world for its business probity and com-
mercial integrity. It is the trading centre of the world, and we do not want to place our merchants in an impossible position, and probably force some of them into bankruptcy when the only object of the Government is to restore our trade balance, and put our credit into a sound position. We do not want, in aiming at that purpose, to inflict an injustice within the four corners of an Act of Parliament, and we should protect reasonable and bona fide contracts, made under our law, and covering a series of years. I suggest that, between now and the Report stage, the President of the Board of Trade should see if he cannot suggest some words to put right what is essentially a weakness in this particular Clause.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: It seems to me that the Liberals are just beginning to realise and appreciate the implications of this Measure, and we are delighted to have their support. I think hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate have proved beyond doubt, by their arguments, that it is practically impossible for business to be conducted in this country except upon a contract basis. Hon. Members are aware that an immense number of orders are given by a large number of firms in this country quite six months ahead, and contracts are entered into for delivery. Such contracts are frequently made with manufacturers in Germany. In the case of articles like finished steel, mining appliances, conveyors, and steel props, the orders are given months ahead, and this has been conclusively proved to be the case in the tin-plate industry of South Wales, and other industries. If continuity of employment is to be secured the importation of steel bars, and such other raw materials as come under Class III, is essential to carry on the business of the country. I would like to reinforce the statement which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) by a statement which appeared in to-day's "Manchester Guardian" which reads as follows:
Following the abandonment of the gold standard the London Chamber of Commerce issued the following notice:
It has been brought to the attention of the Chamber that foreign concerns which have entered into contracts to supply
goods for pounds sterling have in certain oases refused to deliver unless buyers are prepared to meet the difference in exchanges. British houses which have contracted to pay for goods in foreign currency must obviously do so, even though it involves them in lose, and foreign suppliers should similarly be held to their contracts. The names of foreign suppliers failing to meet their engagements should be reported to the Chamber.
As a consequence foreign suppliers have for the most part held to their contracts and have delivered their goods, which, having been sold on this market in sterling, has involved them in considerable losses. English customers, however, wishing to avoid tariffs have expedited the delivery of these goods, and this largely accounts for the cry of dumping, as goods have been delivered in two months which normally would only have been delivered in five.
I trust that whoever replies for the Government will meet the point which has been placed before the House so clearly by hon. Members sitting below the Gangway. Certainly the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade treated very flippantly the arguments that were advanced. We want, particularly in the case of an Amendment of this kind, serious attention to be directed to the dislocation that will occur in business. The argument as to licensing, particularly by the French in regard to coal, is no answer to the arguments that have been advanced in this case. I trust that not only the two Liberals who have spoken, but every Liberal in the House, will realise the implications of this Bill, and will come into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Perhaps, now that the right hon. Gentleman has returned, I may put to him the point on which we particularly desire his observations with regard to this Amendment. We have in mind two classes of cases which are of particular importance. First, there is the class of case where already large quantities of goods are lying in bonded warehouses in the various ports of this country. Those goods are lying there awaiting removal as and when the purchaser requires them, when he will pay the duty which at present exists. Take, for instance, silk goods. I understand that there are very large quantities of silk goods in the bonded warehouses of the Port of London. Those goods have not yet paid duty. If the right hon. Gentleman puts a duty on any of those classes of goods which already bear some duty,
will those goods which are now in the bonded warehouses, and have been there for a considerable time, have to pay the fresh duty, in addition to the present duty, when they are removed from bond; and will the people who have them in bond be given any notice in order that they may clear them before the fresh duty comes upon them? They are merely being kept there as a matter of convenient trade practice which has grown up over a long period of time under the present system.
That raises another question of great importance, namely, whether the right hon. Gentleman has made any arrangements at the ports for further warehouse accommodation, in order that all these Class III goods which are taxed may be kept there in bond for the convenience of the merchants of the country, to be dealt with in the usual way as bonded goods. The second point is this: During recent months, contracts have been entered into, which are binding upon merchants, manufacturers and others in this country, for the supply of goods to be delivered from time to time. Some of those deliveries are still due. Those merchants and manufacturers cannot get out of these contracts; they are bound by them. Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman that persons who have entered into ordinary bona fide trading contracts, having nothing to do with dumping, or abnormal supply, or acceleration, or anything of the kind, are to be penalised upon contracts which they cannot get out of? If the duty is going to be put on in such a measure as to be prohibitive, they will be left with the goods, having to take delivery of them, but the duty will be so high that they cannot re-sell them. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is essential for the merchants and traders of this country that some provision should be made to deal fairly with these cases, and that in any case the Bill should only affect fresh orders placed after people have some knowledge that there is a possibility of this Bill coming into operation. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to let us know what steps he proposes to take as regards these two matters, and to accept this Amendment, because it will deal fairly with the second case that I have put.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that in my absence the Parliamentary Secre-
tary has replied at considerable length on the latter point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. With regard to the first point, as to bonded goods, I am told by the Customs authorities that we have all the necessary accommodation that we are likely to require, and I would point out that during the last few weeks there has been a very heavy importation, which has been amply provided for by the warehouses on the Thames, at Harwich, Hull and elsewhere. There is no practical difficulty, therefore, as regards such goods as may come into bond. As to whether goods already in bond and subject to duty will also have to bear in addition whatever duty may be imposed by Order, I am afraid that the answer is in the affirmative. It must be so of necessity. It has been found in general revenue practice in the past that you cannot adjust your duties in that way, but that you must take the total duty that is payable, and that total duty in this case has in a great many instances been already anticipated.
Many people have been acting on the assumption that some such legislation as this would be likely to come. There would be no forestalling if there had not been that assumption. Whether or not they knew that it was going to happen in this form is, of course, quite another matter. It may have surprised some people. But, after all, they were doing as is always done by importers at Budget time; they were taking certain taxation risks; and in a great many contracts provision is made for safeguarding against these very risks. I am informed that, while it is not exactly common form, it is commonly done. Of course, one sees these things referred to from time to time, as well as in one's personal experience. We have followed here what has been the practice of the Treasury and of this House in the past with regard to all budgetary taxes—

Mr. ATTLEE: This is not Budget time.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I know that it is not, but what difference does that make? A principle which is sound in the month of May is equally sound in the month of November. We have followed what has been the practice of the Treasury and of this House in the past, and I am afraid we cannot vary it.

Mr. McENTEE: Am I right in assuming, from the speech of the right hon.
Gentleman, that, if there is already something in bond on which a duty of, gay, 33⅓ per cent. has to be paid, and an additional 100 per cent. duty is put on, the tax will be one of 133⅓ per cent.; or will the first tax be taken into consideration in fixing the additional tax?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot undertake that it would be taken into account. The Act, when it is passed, will provide for the giving of powers to impose a duty up to 100 per cent. I cannot undertake to say that the amount will be 70 per cent., or 60 per cent., or what it may be. At this moment that is not for me to say; it will appear when the Order is published.

Mr. McENTEE: The point that I have in mind is this: If the limit under the Bill is 100 per cent., and some article on which a tax is already imposed happens to have an additional tax imposed

Division No. 12.]
AYES.
[9.27 p.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F, (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hicks, Ernest George
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hirst, George Henry
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
John, William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, William James


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, pontypool)
McGovern, John
Mr. Cordon Macdonald and Mr. Duncan Graham.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Goven)





NOES.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Clarry, Reginald George


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Clayton, Dr. George C.


Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cooke, James D.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Boyce, H. Leslie
Copeland, Ida


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Courtauld, Major John Sewell


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Broadbent, Colonel John
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry


Apsley, Lord
Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Aske, Sir William Robert
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Crooke, J. Smedley


Atholl, Duchess of
Browne, Captain A. C.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)


Atkinson, Cyril
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Burghley, Lord
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Cross, R. H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Burnett, John George
Crossley, A. C.


Balniel, Lord
Butler, Richard Austen
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Caine, G. R. Hall
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Denville, Alfred


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Dickie, John P.


Beaumont, R. E. B. (Portsm'th, Centr'l)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Dixey, Arthur C. N.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Castle Stewart, Earl
Donner, P. W.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Doran, Edward


Bernays, Robert
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Dower, Captain A. V. G.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Drewe, Cedric


Birchall, Major Sir John Denman
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Duggan, Hubert John


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Borodale, Viscount
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Eales, John Frederick


Bossom, A. C.
Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Eastwood, John Francis


Boulton, W. W.
Chotzner, Alfred James
Eden, Robert Anthony

upon it, under this Bill, of 100 per cent., or 90 per cent., or 80 per cent., will it be possible to impose a tax exceeding 100 per cent., although, apparently, the limit under the Bill is to be 100 per cent.?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The only powers which are taken under this Bill are for duties not exceeding 100 per cent. Whatever duties there may be in respect of other legislation is quite another matter. As far as this Measure is concerned, it only refers to powers up to a limit of 100 per cent. I need hardly point out that goods that are in bond now have not paid duty. They may be removed in the course of this week or to-morrow—one cannot tell. That really is entirely left to the discretion of the owner of the goods.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 47; Noes, 297.

Edmondson, Major A. J.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Lees-Jones, John
Robinson, John Roland


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Elmley, Viscount
Levy, Thomas
Ross, Ronald D.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Liddall, Walter S.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard
Llewellin, Major John J.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Runge, Norah Cecil


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mabane, William
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Fraser, Captain Ian
McKeag, William
Salt, Edward W.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E
McKie, John Hamilton
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Fuller, Captain A. E. G.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Gibson, Charles Granville
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Magnay, Thomas
Savery, Samuel Servington


Glossop, C. W. H.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Scone, Lord


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M
Selley, Harry R.


Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Goldie, Noel B.
Martin, Thomas B.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John M.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Gower, Sir Robert
Millar, James Duncan
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Milne, Charles
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Greene, William P. C.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tfd & Chisw'k)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Smithers, Waldron


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlosbro', W.)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morgan, Robert H.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Soper, Richard


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Munro, Patrick
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Hartland, George A.
Nail, Sir Joseph
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Stones, James


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Storey, Samuel


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Stourton, John J.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Strauss, Edward A.


Herbert, George (Rotherham)
Nunn, William
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hillman, Dr. George B.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Ormiston, Thomas
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (Pd'gt'n, S.)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Palmer, Francis Noel
Templeton, William P.


Hornby, Frank
Patrick, Colin M.
Thompson, Luke


Horsbrugh, Florence
Pearson, William G.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Howard, Tom Forrest
Peat, Charles U.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Penny, Sir George
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hurd, Percy A.
Pickering, Ernest H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir P. (M'tr'se)
Pike, Cecil F.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.
Potter, John
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Wells, Sydney Richard


Jamieson, Douglas
Purbrick, R.
Weymouth, Viscount


Jennings, Roland
Raikes, Hector Victor Alpin
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Johnston, J, W. (Clackmannan)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ker, J. Campbell
Ramsbotham, Herswald
Withers, Sir John James


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ramsden, E.
Womersley, Walter James


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff)


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Rea, Walter Russell
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wragg, Herbert


Law, Sir Alfred
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Remer, John R.



Leckie, J. A.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Lord Erskine and Mr. Blindell.

Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, at the end, to add the words:
so, however, that the total duty charge-able shall not exceed one hundred per cent. of the value of the article.
The Sub-section as it stands will be taken to mean that, if any article comes
into the country which already has a duty chargeable upon it under some other Act, such as a Budget Duty, it will be possible under this Bill to impose an additional tax up to 100 per cent. That is giving the Board of Trade greater powers than was anticipated, even by themselves, when they first put forward
the idea of this Bill. In addition to making the article more expensive, the fact that you are increasing the tax by a further 100 per cent. might mean that, where an article is already being taxed 50 per cent., if the Board of Trade consider it advisable for prohibitive purposes, or necessary because of the excessive quantities of the articles that are being imported, to put the full limit of this tariff upon it, you might easily find it being taxed 150 per cent. That is putting a very unnecessary burden upon certain articles which are very necessary to the life of the nation.
A London evening newspaper the other day referred to a particular commodity which it said was being dumped here in excessive quantities, and tried to make out that it would be advisable to keep it out of the country altogether, to take only imports from the Colonies and to depend for the remainder of our consumption upon the home manufactured supply. If that advice were taken into account, if the President of the Board of Trade listened to the voice of Fleet Street instead of the voice of the electors outside, he would be imposing an excessive tariff, and he would place upon very large numbers, not only of people who might be better able to pay the excessive price but of people who have to watch very carefully every penny they spend so as to get the greatest possible value for it, who compose the very large majority of the people of this country, a very grave hardship indeed, amounting in most cases to actual prohibition.
The Amendment should make itself agreeable to the right hon. Gentleman. We have objected to the tariff throughout the whole of the Debates on the Bill, but on this Amendment we are conceding the point which he has been putting forward and which has already been established. The House has given him the right to go to the limit of 100 per cent. We are asking that it shall not give him permission to go beyond that limit, that 100 per cent. is the maximum to which he is to be allowed to go, and that he is not to be permitted to impose a heavier tax than was contemplated when the Bill was first introduced. I put this to the right hon. Gentleman as a business man whose business in the main, in his early days
at any rate, was concerned with shipping and with importing and exporting articles to and from this country. He should understand the point. I expect, therefore, that he will see the force of not imposing an additional tax beyond the 100 per cent. already agreed to, but will concede the point and accept the Amendment.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Members proposal would, I fear, be quite unworkable in a great many instances. Many duties that are now payable are specific duties and are not ad valorem. It would be extremely difficult to translate a specific duty into an ad valorem amount so as to reach the calculation which his Amendment would render necessary. The hon. Member can quite well see that if we had to translate each specific duty into its ad valorem equivalent we should have to make a fresh calculation and work on a fresh principle on nearly every category of goods and indeed on very large varieties in each category which in itself would be an impracticable way of assessing duty. There is one group of duties where it is obvious it would be quite unworkable—the case of spirits where the existing duty obviously is in excess already. [Interruption.] I quite agree. That is a good example anyhow of the fact that you cannot take existing duties into account and at the same time operate on the basis of 100 per cent., which will be the provision of the Act.
Let me point out how far this would be contrary to the principle of the Bill itself. If the existing duties are not sufficient to prevent these goods from coming into the country in their normal quantities there can be no harm from the point of view of the exclusion of these goods in regarding that exclusion as being in exactly the same category as any other budgetary duties, and the amount necessary to prevent abnormal quantities coining in being added to it. If the existing duty is to prevent such things being imported, obvously there will be no abnormality with which we have to deal. Therefore, it follows that the best arrangement we can make is to follow past practice, and the additional amount which will be imposed under this Bill will be the fairest way as between the owners of different
categories of goods or different articles and will in itself be used simply with the object of dealing with abnormal imports and nothing else.

Mr. MACLEAN: In the case of the kind just illustrated by the right hon. Gentleman, is it not looking upon the duty already imposed upon the article as part of the value of the article and therefore unfair to have the imposition of a new tax?

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Value of articles for purpose of Act.)

Major MILNER: I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, at the end, to insert the words:
(3) All regulations made under this Sec-won shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made and, if an Address is presented to His Majesty by the Commons House within the next subsequent twenty days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of any new regulation.
The Committee will observe that the object of the Amendment is to provide that the regulations which the Bill says may be made by the Commissioners shall be laid on the Table of the House. I can imagine the indignation of hon. Members on the Opposition side in the last Parliament had the Labour Government put forward the suggestion which is made in this Clause to the effect that the Commissioners may make regulations enabling their officers to require
any person concerned with the importation of articles into the United Kingdom to furnish to the Commissioners in such form as they may require such information as is in their opinion necessary for a proper valuation of the articles, and to produce any any books of account or other documents of whatever nature relating to the purchase, importation, or re-sale of the articles by that person.
I can recall the indignation with which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Holland-with-Boston (Mr. Blindell), who is now sitting on the Front Bench opposite, met much more moderate provisions than these in the Agricultural Market-
ing Bill. We should have heard a great deal as to the gross interference with the liberty of the subject in endeavouring to justify the making of regulations that the Commissioners shall demand all books and documents and access to any premises. This is a very serious matter indeed, and I suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite should give it their careful consideration. The very least thing which this Bill ought to provide is that these regulations should be laid upon the Table of the House. They can be made in a hole-and-corner fashion, and the House will have no opportunity to express an opinion upon them. It will, presumably, be only after expense has been incurred and with difficulty that the importers will be able to know the regulations with which they have to comply.
The regulations are, apparently, going to be of the widest possible character, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider this particular part of the Bill, and possibly accept the Amendment which I have moved. There are precedents for the inclusion of the form of my Amendment. I am inclined to think that under the Weights and Measures Acts, which, I believe, are administered by the right hon. Gentleman's Department and deal with matters which are nothing like as important as the matters likely to be dealt with under this Bill, regulations have to be laid before Parliament. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we on this side are doing our best at any rate to make the Measure, although we object to it in principle, a little more acceptable, perhaps, and certainly a good deal more workable. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to accept the Amendment.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not think that my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment need take quite so serious a view of these regulations. They are merely mechanism to enable the Commissioners to ascertain the value of the article, and therefore do justice to the parties concerned, and not in the nature of the orders which the President of the Board of Trade is to make, which, of course, quite properly are to come before this House in the shape of a Resolution for confirmation. This is just an ordinary
piece of departmental mechanism. At any rate, I may perhaps allay his suspicions if I tell him that these regulations will be published in the "London Gazette" and in the Statutory Rules and Orders. I hope that that will satisfy him that complete publicity will be given to these very simple regulations.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for his explanation, but if these Rules are to be published as Statutory Rules and Orders, as I understand he now says they are to be, and not merely as Regulations, will it not be according to practice and precedent that they should be laid upon the Table of the House? Surely this House is entitled to be acquainted with Statutory Rules and Orders if they are to be made in that form. I would point out to the hon. Member that there have before been objections from other parts of the House to

Division No. 13.]
AYES.
[9.56 p.m.


Atllee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Sevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hicks, Ernest George
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hirst, George Henry
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, David Bees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.




NOES.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Bossom, A. C.
Clarry, Reginald George


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Boulton, W. W.
Clayton, Dr. George C.


Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cooke, James D.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Cooper, A. Duff


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Copeland, Ida


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Boyce, H. Leslie
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Apsley, Lord
Broadbent, Colonel John
Crooke, J. Smedley


Aske, Sir William Robert
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)


Atholl, Duchess of
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Atkinson, Cyril
Browne, Captain A. C.
Cronm-Johnson, R. P.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. B.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Cross, R. H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Burghley, Lord
Crossley, A. C.


Balniel, Lord
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burnett, John George
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Butt, Sir Alfred
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Calne, G. R. Hall
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Dixey, Arthur C. N.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Donner, P. W.


Beaumont, R. E. B. (Portsm'th, Centr'l)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Doran, Edward


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Castle Stewart, Earl
Dower, Captain A. V. G.


Bern, Sir Arthur Shirley
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Drewe, Cedric


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Duggan, Hubert John


Bernays, Robert
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Dunglass, Lord


Birchall, Major Sir John Denman
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Eales, John Frederick


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Eastwood, John Francis


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Eden, Robert Anthony


Borodale, Viscount
Chotzner, Alfred James
Edmondson, Major A. J.

Regulations which required the production of documents for the proof of value. I seem to remember that during certain proposals regarding the taxation of land values, there were some very violent protestations made as regards the production of documents simply in order to prove the value so that the valuer might act fairly between the parties. I suggest to the hon. Member that if these are to be published as Statutory Rules and Orders, there can be no harm in laying them upon the Table of the House, because it will not delay their operation in any way, but will give an opportunity for anybody who objects to them to raise the question in the ordinary way by a Prayer, and to have the matter here discussed.

Question put "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 45; Noes,285.

Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Lees-Jones, John
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ross, Ronald D.


Eimley, Viscount
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Levy, Thomas
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Entwistle, Major Cyril Fuliard
Liddall, Walter S.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Erskine-Boist. Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Russell, Hamer Field (Shel'ld, B'tside)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mabane, William
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Salt, Edward W.


Ford. Sir Patrick J.
MacAndrew. Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Fraser, Captain Ian
McEwen, J. H. F.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McKie, John Hamilton
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Fuller, Captain A. E. G.
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Ganzoni, Sir John
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Gibson, Charles Granville
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Scone, Lord


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Selley, Harry R.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Goldie, Noel B.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John M.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Goodman, Colonel Albert w.
Millar, James Duncan
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)


Greene, William P. C.
Molson, A. Harold Elsdale
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Morgan, Robert H.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford. N.)
Soper, Richard


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Muirhead, Major A, J.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Munro, Patrick
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Harris, Percy A.
Nail, Sir Joseph
Stones, James


Hartland, George A.
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Stourton, John J.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Strauss, Edward A.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Herbert, George (Rotherham)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hillman, Dr. George B.
Ormiston, Thomas
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (Pd'gtn, S.)


Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Palmer, Francis Noel
Templeton, William P.


Holdsworth, Herbert
Patrick, Colin M.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Staiybridge)
Peake, Captain Osbert
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pearson, William G.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Hornby, Frank
Peat, Charles U.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Howard, Tom Forrest
Penny, Sir George
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'ptn, Bliston)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Pickering, Ernest H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. sir Aylmer
Pike, Cecil F.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. (M'tr'se)
Potter, John
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Hutchison, W. D. (Essox, Romf'd)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.
Procter. Major Henry Adam
Weymouth, Viscount


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, c.)
Purbrick, R.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Raikes, Hector Victor Aipin
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Jamieson, Douglas
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Jennings, Roland
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Ramsbotham, Herswald
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonul George


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ramsden, E.
Withers, Sir John James


Ker, J. Campbell
Rea, Walter Russell
Womersley, Walter James


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff)


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Reid. James S. C. (Stirling)
Worthington, Dr. John V,


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Remer, John R,
Wragg, Herbert


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'V'noaks)


Law, Sir Alfred
Rhys. Hon. Charles Arthur U.



Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Roberts, Aied (Wrexham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Leckie, J. A.
Robinson, John Roland
Sir Victor Warrender and Mr. Blindell.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Determination of disputes.)

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, after the word "department," to insert the words:
or a Member of the Commons House of Parliament.
I have little doubt that the Government will be able to accept this Amend-
ment. It is quite familiar, has often been inserted in Acts of Parliament and it is clearly right that it should be inserted here. We have had no indication as to the category of persons to be appointed on this panel by the Lord Chancellor. I do not know whether these referees are to be persons of business experience or whether they are to be lawyers. I am aware of the large contingent of junior members of the Bar who are Members of the present House
of Commons, and it would be a self-denying ordinance on the part of hon. Members of this House if they accepted this proposal. In a controversy on these trade matters no Member of this House should act as a referee. It is possible that the dispute may concern an industry which has been already debated, and as we have cut out Government Departments I think we should also cut out Members of Parliament from acting as referees. It is true that this taxation will arise from the decision of a Government Department and that that is the reason for their exclusion, but still as, theoretically, the constitution is not in abeyance, even under this National Government, and that the taxing authority is still this House, it is clear that no referee who is a Member of this House should be appointed as a referee by the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. HORE-BEUSHA: The exclusion which the hon. Member wishes to make is a little invidious, and I cannot understand why his suspicions should fall with such force upon Members of Parliament alone. The reason why Government Department officials are not to be referees is because a Government Department will be a party to the suit. If you are going to exclude certain categories of persons from acting as referees I do not see why you should confine the exclusion to Members of Parliament. You might exclude ministers of religion, or any other class of the community; and my hon. Friend will remember what happened on the Consumers' Council Bill, where it was sought to exclude profession after profession. I suggest that the Amendment is not necessary and that it does less than justice to the calling which we both follow.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, at the end, to add the words:
Provided that the proceedings on any question referred to the referee shall be held in public.
I feel that the case for this Amendment is very much stronger after listening to the last remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary. It appears now that the President of the Board of Trade may have in mind that a Member of Parlia-
ment shall actually act as a referee. At any rate, a Member of Parliament is not excluded by the Bill. Let me draw the attention of the Committee to two or three points in favour of making the dispute which is to be brought before a referee, a matter of public interest. I feel sure that it is in the interests of the merchants themselves that the proceedings before a referee should be held in public.
So far, the right hon. Gentleman has not accepted a single suggestion from these benches, and I do not know whether I shall succeed in inducing him to relax a little from his rigid attitude. It is obvious the right hon. Gentleman expects some disputes in the administration of this Bill, because the marginal note to this clause is marked "determination of disputes." I can well imagine that there will be a number of disputes arising from the decisions of the Board of Trade in connection with this matter. Let me draw the attention of hon. Members to the point I want to make. Clause 4 reads:
If any dispute arises whether any articles imported into the United Kingdom are articles specified in an order made under this Act.
My Amendment provides that the proceedings on any question of such dispute referred to the referee shall be held in public. I have taken the trouble to find out the duties of a referee under other Acts of Parliament, and I have it on good authority that he is to be regarded as an arbitrator. In cases under this Bill he is an arbitrator between the merchant and the Board of Trade in a dispute which may arise on a decision of the Board of Trade. What is the definition of arbitration? Arbitration is an arrangement for taking and abiding by the judgment of a selected person in some disputed matter instead of having the case brought before the established courts of justice. It is germane to my case that both parties must agree to the submission of a case to arbitration. Under this Bill as drafted the only party to decide whether a case shall be submitted to the referee is the Board of Trade. I see my hon. Friend opposite shaking his head. Do I understand that, if the Board of Trade decides that the duty shall be 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. on certain commodities, that the merchant will be able to say, "I dispute
the 70 per cent." and the case forthwith goes to the referee? If the hon. Member agrees, then I can conceive of no duty being imposed on any article whatsoever without the merchant disputing the amount of the duty, and therefore every case will be subject to submission to the referee.
The Committee should not allow this Clause to pass without the right hon. Gentleman telling us what type of person is to be appointed as referee. Is he to be a Free Trader or a tariffist? Is he to be a Liberal or a Conservative? What will be his remuneration? Will he be a person, for instance, who is biased in favour or against the co-operative movement J Co-operators are, of course, very large importers. Where will the referee sit? Will he sit at the Board of Trade to hear cases, or will be attend at a place under the auspices of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise?
In all industrial dispute arbitrations both employers and employed must, in the first place, agree to arbitration; otherwise the matters in dispute cannot go to arbitration. I have had the privilege of sitting in several cases of arbitration when there has been a dispute between employers and employed, and I have never yet come across a case where the employer alone could decide that the case must be submitted to a referee. Both sides must agree; otherwise, as I have stated, the case cannot be submitted to arbitration at all. I have here a list of Acts of Parliament under which that procedure, now suggested, is adopted already. The Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, contains a definite provision whereby the whole of the witnesses' evidence shall be brought into the public eye. There is nothing that will create more suspicion in the minds of the trading community than the appointment by the Lord Chancellor of a gentleman to conduct proceedings and to give decisions on tariffs behind closed doors. There is no reason at all why the referee should not hear evidence from the Board of Trade, from the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and from the merchant himself, but let it be done in public, so that the public may know exactly why the Board of Trade or the Commissioners of Customs have decided on a given duty.
There is another consideration to be borne in mind. In this Clause the right hon. Gentleman is practically abrogating Clauses 30 and 31 of the Customs Laws Consolidation Act of 1876. I think I am right in saying that he is repeating in this Bill Section 11 of the Safeguarding of Industries Act of 1921. He does that, however, without remembering one significant fact. Under the Safeguarding of Industries Act of 1921 there must be a public inquiry before the duties are imposed. That ensures publicity before the duty is imposed. Now, however, the right hon. Gentleman, having repeated Section 11 of the Act of 1921 in this Bill, forgets that he imposes a duty first. Then the merchant may challenge him, and finally the referee holds an inquiry behind closed doors and decides on his own account which side in the dispute is right. I think therefore that we are entitled to ask him to concede this point to us.
We are informed that the Bill is only to last for six months. I think I am right in saying this, whether hon. Members believe in tariffs, duties, safeguarding, prohibition, or in Free Trade, one thing must be evident to all that this Measure will shortly prove whether tariffs will achieve the object which the propagandists of Protection have in view, or not. I, for one, will await with interest the working of this Measure to find out whether the contention of the tariffists is right or wrong. But I repeat that there is nothing better for the purpose of proving to the public whether this Measure can achieve the object in view, than to have all the proceedings in connection with it carried on in public. After all, what is wrong about holding a public inquiry to find out whether or not the Board of Trade has insisted upon too high a duty in the case of certain goods?
I think I have said enough to prove to the right hon. Gentleman that there is substance in this Amendment. I trust that he will not be as rigid with me as he has been with my colleagues. He has not, as I have already stated, conceded a single inch during the whole of this Debate. Now is his opportunity, as a good Liberal and a better Radical, to yield the point raised in the Amendment and to give to the public, if necessary, the evidence if given on oath in these
inquiries, and to show the public, by reports in the Press and in official documents, exactly what is being done under the provisions of this doubtful Measure.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have listened with sympathy to this great appeal for publicity but my hon. Friend seems to forget that the matters which he is asking to have decided in public are private and confidential. Customs officials would welcome this Amendment because it would discourage aggrieved persons from appealing, but we wish to do justice to aggrieved persons. Any person who disputes the justice of a claim made upon him goes to appeal and produces documents which are confidential to himself. If the parties to the dispute wish to have their arguments and their documents made public there will be no objection whatever to that being done. The hon. Gentleman's next point was that everybody subject to a tax would appeal. It may interest him to know that the number of appeals since the ad valorem duties were first introduced has not yet reached double figures. These matters work very smoothly; the Customs officials perform their duties with great consideration, and there has never been the slightest friction. I suggest to my hon. Friend that, if he wishes to allow private matters to remain private, he ought not to persist in this Amendment.

Mr. COCKS: I do not quite understand, even after the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary, why there should be any opposition to this Amendment. It has to do with disputes of a commercial character and also of a legal character. All legal questions, with certain exceptions, as we all know, are heard in public, because it is a necessary safeguard of justice that legal questions should be heard in public. Questions of divorce are not now dealt with in that way, yet although certain people may have been recently divorced from their principles, I do not think the President of the Board of Trade will use that as an argument in this case. You have, in legal matters, the position safeguarded in every possible way. There are the high traditions of the Bar, there are the Judges, with very great traditions behind them, and there are legal prin-
ciples which have been laid down by Statute and are generally well known, and yet it is considered necessary that in the interests of justice itself those proceedings should be heard in public.
Here you have a case which is quasi-commercial and quasi-legal, and it is to be heard, not by a Judge and jury, but by a referee, and from the decision of the referee there is no appeal. He is an absolute dictator, and what he says goes. There is no appeal from him to the Lord Chancellor or to the President of the Board of Trade either. Surely then, in a case like this, where you have no traditional laws or customs to go upon, where you have a man from whose decisions you cannot appeal, it is very necessary that, however able he may be, the public shall be safeguarded against an injustice being done. The referee is able to make decisions which may not only be very important but may cause certain traders, honest traders, great losses. They may bankrupt them in certain cases, and yet they have no safeguard whatsoever under the Bill as drafted.
10.30 p.m.
A man sitting in a secret room can make decisions which might ruin a trading firm, and the general public have no knowledge of the grounds on which that decision was based. I see no reason why the trading community of this country should not be safeguarded by the fact that these decisions are made in public, and I seriously ask the President of the Board of Trade, who after all has great Liberal traditions behind him—I hope they are not too far behind him— to consider why he should not accept this Amendment. I can say quite sincerely that I see no reason, from the point of view of those who support the Bill, why he should not accept the Amendment. If I were in favour of the Bill, I should support the Amendment as well. It has not been moved with the idea of weakening the Bill in any way, but when transactions of great commercial importance are in question involving, it may be, large sums of money and involving also legal points as to what a particular regulation means, why cannot we have the safeguard of publicity? You can have a very small court and not many members of the public will be there, but there will be representatives of the Press, particularly
of the commercial Press, and certain things will be laid down by the referee which may be very interesting and valuable. I put forward this plea seriously and not from a party point of view. The people who are concerned and will probably lose money will have no redress against the referee's findings, and there will be no appeal to the sense of justice of the President of the Board of Trade, The Lord Chancellor appoints the referee, and if he makes a mistake there is no appeal. The referee is not only the magistrate, but the judge and the House of Lords as well. You are setting up this unknown man as a sort of Mussolini, and the only way in which a decision can be changed is by Act of Parliament. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 5 (Exception for transit articles) and 6 (Exercise of powers of Board of Trade under Act) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Short title, construction and extent.)

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I beg to move, in page 4, line 9, at the end, to add the words:
Provided that the expiry of this Act shall not affect the previous operation thereof or of any order made thereunder, or any obligation or liability previously incurred under this Act or any such Order in respect of any duty of Customs, penalty, forfeiture, or punishment, or the taking of any steps, or the institution or carrying on of any proceedings to determine the amount of any such duty or enforce any such obligation or liability.
We desire to add these words at the end of the Clause because, if we left the Bill as originally drafted, it would mean that all unpaid duties on the expiration of the Act would remain irrecoverable. It would have remained open to any importer to leave over the payment of duties until the expiration of the Act, and thus it would have been impossible to recover the unpaid duties. That would have been grossly unfair to those who had met their obligations during the six months. There would, too, have been no possibility of having recourse to a referee at the expiration of the six months, and
I am not at all sure that, if proceedings were going on when the clock struck at the end of six months, they would be in order. I regret that this was not noticed at the time, and that it should be necessary at this stage to move the Amendment, but I would point out that there is provision of this kind in other temporary Acts, as, for instance, in the Foodstuffs (Prevention of Exploitation) Act of this Session. It also appears in one other of the emergency Acts, and the Committee will realise that it is a reasonable provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. ATTLEE: It has been pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) that the Bill has rather a clumsy title, and I thought he might like to consider adopting an earlier practice under which Bills were more closely identified with their authors. There was the Michael Angelo Taylor Act, and the Customs duties which are so well known by the title of the McKenna Duties. May I suggest that this should be called the Walter Runciman Act, thus identifying his name with abnormal importations.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: I realise that a constitutional point is involved in the Amendment to this Clause which I have put on the Paper, but I would like to raise the question of the exclusion of the Isle of Man from the operations of the Bill. If the Isle of Man is not included there is a great danger of evasions of the law, which may cause serious embarrassment to the Government. I would refer the President of the Board of Trade to the Act of 1765, which he will remember, which gives power to the Imperial Government to intimate to the Isle of Man the Customs duties which the Imperial Government wish to be enforced upon that self-governing Dominion. If the Isle of Man is excluded that may increase employment in my country by restoring the old smuggling system which was in vogue years ago, but, at the same time, it may do a great deal of damage to this country, and I suggest, therefore, that Sub-section (2) should be eliminated. Duties may be put upon
many articles, such as surgical instruments, clocks and watches, which could easily be smuggled into this country in handbags. The Isle of Man depends very largely upon its industry of catering for visitors, and up to now we have had no customs duties between the Isle of Man and this country, and it would be against the interests of the Isle of Man to be excluded from the operations of this Measure.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now trespassing on a matter on which it is within the competence of the Tynwald to say what they may choose to do. It affects the inhabitants of the Isle of Man, and not ourselves.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: I think I am right in saying that the position of the Tynwald is that they may impose, abolish, or vary—I think those are the words of the Act—any Customs duty, but the initiative must come from the Imperial Government, or should come from the Imperial Government may I say? Up to now that has not been the case, but, strictly speaking, I think the Act of 1765, which dealt with Customs duties, is within the memory of my right hon. Friend, and under that Act the initiative should come from this country. I foresee that if Customs duties are to be imposed, and we are to follow that precedent, the Isle of Man should be permanently excluded. I hope that in what is being done the Government are carrying with them the Government of the Isle of Man in order that there will be no confusion in the future.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Has the President of the Board of Trade satisfied himself that goods coming from the Isle of Man are Empire goods or foreign goods?

Mr. HARRIS: In the case of all new taxes, the initiative rests with the Isle of Man.

Mr. COCKS: I do not know whether the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine) desires to have the Isle of Man included or excluded from this Bill, or whether he wishes the Isle of Man to be flooded with foreign goods. It appears to me that the Government desire to flood the Isle of Man with foreign goods, and I think that is a scandal. Practically what is being done by this Bill is
that the Government are cutting the Isle of Man out of the British Empire, and that is an outrage in relation to a country which has such brilliant traditions, literary and otherwise, as the Isle of Man.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I thought the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine) had come to this House as an apostle of Manx liberty, and I was much surprised to find that, instead of appearing in that guise, he came forward to surrender the keys of his national fortress. In this Bill we have been careful and solicitous to preserve the insular privileges of the Isle of Man, and such relics of self-government, formal though they be, that the Isle of Man still possesses; but my hon. Friend comes here from that Island and complains that we have not taken those privileges away. I sympathise with him very much. In form, at any rate, Customs duties are imposed by the Tynwald before they are imposed in this House, 'and any goods which come into the Isle of Man in transit for this country will pay in British ports the full duty that may be imposed by any Orders that the President of the Board of Trade may put into operation in accordance with these powers. While the Isle of Man may, in the exercise of its self-governing rights, allow itself to be flooded with any kind of commodity in the interim, this country will see that it is not used as a dumping ground for those goods, but that the British public will be protected, whatever may be decided by the Tynwald.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary how he proposes to find out the source of all goods coming from the Isle of Man, without any Customs?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going far outside the scope of this Clause.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The two new Clauses standing in the name of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. COVE)—(Protected manufacturers to observe fair wages clause) and (Prevention of profiteering by protected industries) —are both outside the scope of the Bill.

Bill reported; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. LANSBURY: I thought that probably the right hon. Gentleman was going to say a few words in order to speed the Bill towards another place. I hope I have not, by intervening, stopped him from doing so. I want to say that we propose to divide on the Third Reading of this Bill. We have not put down another Amendment, because we have already stated our objections in an Amendment which has been voted upon. We propose to vote against the Third Reading, and I would like to make a few remarks on the Bill itself. First of all, I should like to say a word to new Members. It will not be necessary in the case of old Members, but there is a large number of new Members who may think that, in opposing this Bill to the extent that we have opposed it, we were rather standing out against the declared will of an overwhelming majority.
I was very much amused when I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain)—for whom everybody has great respect—rather rebuking us for the line we have taken. My mind went back to the days of the 1906 Parliament when the Tory party had received quite as bad a thrashing as we received at the last election, and were faced with a very big majority. The right hon. Gentleman himself, the late Lord Balfour and the late Mr. Bonar Law and others kept up an incessant campaign from these benches declaring all the time that the mandate which Ministers at that time declared they had received was no mandate at all, but had been got under false pretences, and, therefore, that those who were in opposition, and who had suffered from these false pretences, had the right to strip the mask from them on every conceivable occasion. I remember the late Lord Birkenhead gaining his reputation with the display of oratorical fireworks that he used to give us from these benches.
It is not my purpose to pursue that except to assure the new Members that we are only acting on the lines of tradition and succession to right hon. Gentlemen opposite who belong to the Tory party. In that matter we are as good Tories as they are. I would like also
to say with regard to the Amendments, that even though hon. Members in this House may very strongly dissent from a Measure, as we do from this, it is the duty of the Opposition to try to improve that Measure to the best of their ability. Any fair-minded person will say that on each Amendment we have moved to-night—and the fact that they were taken by the Chair is proof that they were Amendments of substance—we had a case to put up, and, although we lost every one of the Amendments, that does not at all take away from the fact that in our judgment the Amendments would very considerably have improved a very bad Bill.
Having said that, I want to say a few words as to our general position, as far as I can within the Rules of Order. I understand that this Bill is put forward to meet a great national emergency. We dissent altogether from the view that the great national emergency which exists today is one that can be even tickled by the Bill which is now going to get a Third Reading. It was said by a writer in reference to some other proposals in connection with another country that a certain proposition was a pill to cure an earthquake. This Bill might be described in that fashion. I do not believe that in his heart the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this Bill will have the least effect on the great financial crisis through which the world is passing, and, even if he does, he knows perfectly well that most financial authorities dissent altogether from the view that with the passing of the Gold Standard a Bill of this kind would assist trade and industry in the way he has been telling us in the past couple of days. The difficulties with which this Bill is designed to deal are difficulties concerned with the distribution of goods in the world. The problem that we and all the nations of the world have to solve is what to do with the enormous productive power which mankind possesses. Until this House and other bodies which have to deal with great economic problems face that fact, we shall not make any progress at all.
I have been very struck sitting here these few days that Parliament has met with the earnestness of many of the speeches of new Members. I do not deny for a moment that they hold their principles as dearly as anyone on these benches, but I cannot understand how
anyone can imagine that the restriction of imports and the restriction of the volume of trade between nations and between individuals can deal with the situation with which we are faced. When in this Bill you are told that you are to deal with forestalling by something that the right hon. Gentleman is going to propose in the way of tariffs, is it not the fact that every country which has tariffs is in exactly the same plight as ourselves, only worse? I am not a person who would be wedded either to Free Trade, to tariffs, or to any system. I would support anything that I believe would do even the least good to the mass of the people who need something to be done for them. It is not that at all. I cannot understand why America and France, on the Gold Standard, with plenty of gold, tremendous natural resources and high tariff walls, have the millions of unemployed that they have. The figures in France are going up. So far as it is known, unemployment is increasing quite out of all relationship to the gold wealth, the tariff wealth, and the natural wealth of the country.
11.0 p.m.
I beg every Member who has come here wanting to do something on behalf of the masses who have trusted them to consider with us whether it is not time that we sat down to discover how mankind, and ourselves first, instead of restricting things, should spread abundance abroad. I wish, when the Bill is through, the Government and the House would settle down to consider how we can reorganise the industries of the country. I want them reorganised under public control and public ownership. You, perhaps, want to do it some other way. The one thing we want to secure is that, in that reorganisation and the increased productivity which will come from it, the masses shall share in the increase. There is only one way by which that can be done. As the productive power increases through the use of machinery and better organisation, the workers ought to have higher wages and shorter hours of labour. There is no other way of doing it. If we had the power, that is what we would do.
Our fight against the Bill is because we believe that that would be the more excellent way. We are fond of our country and love our country as much as
anybody else in this House. We believe that we are at the crisis of our fate as a great country. We do not believe that you can go on on these lines of trying to put a ring round us and separating us from other people. The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that we claim the right to do in our own country what we think to be right. Of course, no man lives to himself; no nation can live to itself. That is a law which somehow or other has come into the world, and today it is more true than it ever has been in the history of mankind. I do not believe that this nation of ours or the world of capitalism can go on unless we tackle the problem which faces us, that every day our productive power increases and every day machinery and organisation turn out an abundance of commodities, man is less wanted in the business of production. This Bill will do nothing to cure that, nothing at all. I appeal to new Members who have made their speeches to-night to think once more of the problem and of how they are going to bring abundance to the service of mankind. We believe that life ought to be organised on the basis of services and that the more wealth there is in the world the higher should be the standard of life for the whole of the community. It is because we believe that this Bill, instead of doing that, will crush people still deeper down that we shall vote against the Third Reading.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Anyone who has sat through the discussions on this Bill in its earlier stage or in the Committee stage must have realised how fully the House has co-operated in framing the Bill which now is to take legislative form. We have had delivered here during the last few days a long series of maiden speeches. New points of view have been put to the House in a new way and with new vigour. If I may be allowed to say of the official Opposition, they have also contributed their part in our discussions without any evidence of obstruction. I would express the gratitude of the Government for that fact. I would like also to add that the whole sittings appear to me to have been within the best traditions of our ancient House. Now we have come to the last stage here, and with great rapidity have passed this Bill through all
its various stages. It will go to the Upper House to-night; it will be unaltered there for the Parliament Act takes good care of that. It will receive the Royal Assent to-morrow. It will be put into operation. There will be no time lost in using the powers which have been conferred.

Mr. THORNE: The Orders are already made.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Do not be in a hurry. They will come in due course. The only objection that has been taken to this Bill in principle by the right hon. Gentleman opposite is that it is a regulating Bill. We claim the right to regulate our own affairs. It is a little surprising to hear the Socialists objecting to regulations. The whole method and process of the Socialist State is that we should live under a complete code of regulations. We, on the other hand, have incorporated it into this Bill, although it is only one step, and perhaps only a small step, to deal with the whole problem of taking command of our own destiny. We trust that, having done that, we shall now be able to give freer play to our national recuperative capacity.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not wish to delay the House at this late hour, when we have other business to do. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the speed, the unprecedented speed, with which he has piloted this first-class Measure through the House. I hope the Measure will be put very speedily into operation. I advise the right hon. Gentleman to begin thinking about what he is going to do next, when the rare and refreshing fruits that this country has hoped to achieve as the result of Measures of this description are not forthcoming. Very high expectations have been raised in the country by the speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Government side of the House. People voted at the General Election for speedy prosperity. I advise the Government to start now, bending their attention to consider how they are going to produce this prosperity. I am perfectly satisfied that these Measures, so far from taking the nation out of the crisis, are going to accentuate the crisis. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and with the Government, that it is one of the first duties of a State to concern itself with the control and regulation of its import and export trade.
It is a primary duty of a State. I have never accepted the individualistic view of trade that has been held up this week by the President of the Board of Trade. I think it is preposterous to allow your national destinies to be entirely at the mercy of the unregulated trading operations of individuals pursuing the end of personal profit, and no one of them having regard to the general welfare of the nation as a whole.
Regulation of our external trade is a primary function of the State. The tariff method of attempting to regulate is the worst. It gives us the worst of both worlds. It leaves private trade still intact. It leaves the motive still personal gain. The general welfare of the State is not the concern of any of the individuals who are carrying on that trade, and all that is done by the State, in this form of regulation, is to interpose between two individual traders, in this country and in some other country, a State bar which may or may not work for the national weal. I think that it will not work for the national weal, and that the old Free Trade argument is sound, to this extent, that imports and exports ultimately must balance themselves, and, if you are reducing imports, then surely and certainly, and to a proportionate amount, you reduce exports. I do not pretend to be able to say how it will happen, but I do believe that the net, primary result of this type of legislation, which we are passing to-day with such speed, will be to reduce the general standard of life of the whole mass of our people at a time, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition so ably states, when general world conditions ought to be raising the standards of life of the people to a higher level than ever they were before. I wish the Measure Godspeed. The sooner it is passed, the sooner it is in operation and the sooner the nation feels its practical effects, the sooner will there be a public demonstration of its futility and a demand from the mass of the people for those fundamental changes which will have to be made before we are on our feet again.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: As an ardent Protectionist and supporter of this policy, I welcome this opportunity of giving my approval to a Bill which is only a first step towards
that change in our fiscal policy for which the Government has received so clear a mandate from the great mass of the electors, a mandate to restrict the importation of foreign goods. It is also an earnest of the intention of the Government to carry into operation at the earliest possible moment that change. This is only the first step out of which must come a full protective policy for our industries. The hon. Member for Bridgeton is perturbed because he thinks the standard of living of the people will be in jeopardy of being lowered, but I would remind him of the cases of those industries which have already received a measure of Protection. In their case there has been increased employment, of which I am sure the hon. Member approves, whilst the imports have been lessened and the exports increased. It has not decreased exports. In addition, it has increased the wages of the people who are employed. [Interruption.] That is a fact. There is the case of translucent pottery and lace, where wages went up. This is the only policy which will protect the standard of living of the workers.
I regret that the scope of the Bill is so small. It is restricted to articles in Class III. If we are to bring prosperity to the people of this country, to restrict imports and give all industries a chance, there must be protection, not only for articles in Class III but for agriculture as well as other industries. A tariff is not only introduced to restrict imports or bring in revenue. The real object of a tariff is to increase the production of the industries of the country, and I cannot understand how any hon. Member can object to a policy which has that as its object; an object which has been achieved wherever the policy has been tried. So far as our

Division No. 14.]
AYES.
[11.17 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.


Albery, Irving James
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Birchall, Major Sir John Denman


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Balniel, Lord
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)


Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Blindell, James


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Borodale, Viscount


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bateman, A. L.
Bossom, A. C.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Boulton, W. W.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton


Apsley, Lord
Beaumont, R. E. B. (Portsm'th, Centr'l)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.


Aske, Sir William Robert
Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Boyce, H. Leslie


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Bracken, Brendan


Atholl, Duchess of
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)


Atkinson, Cyril
Bernays, Robert
Briant, Frank

export trade is concerned, I maintain that we must—

Mr. COCKS: On a point of Order. Is it not the case that on Third Reading an hon. Member can only refer to matters which are in the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: I was about to rise and suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that the matters to which he is now referring are hardly within the scope of the Bill.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: It is a question of restricting imports and increasing exports, and that is why I mentioned the question of the export trade. I am glad that in the Bill the Empire is to have complete preference, that is to say, that the goods coming from the Empire are to come in free. I accept that as a first step towards a great inter-Imperial policy. This is the first step in Empire Free Trade. I am delighted that this gesture has been made to our Dominions before the Imperial Conference. It will do much good, I am sure, throughout the Empire. I only hope that the articles which come under Class III may in some measure be articles produced in the Empire. I welcome the Bill as a first step. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade, who has not given a definition of "abnormal imports," will be able to interpret those words to cover as wide a range of articles as possible— as wide as the name of the Bill. This is our first step, and out of this first step must inevitably come the full measure of Protection which the industries of this country so urgently desire.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 329; Noes, 44.

Briscoe, Richard George
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Morrison, William Shephard


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Munro, Patrick


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Nail, Sir Joseph


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.


Burghley, Lord
Hartland, George A.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Burnett, John George
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


Butler, Richard Austen
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nunn, William


Butt, Sir Alfred
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Caine, G. R. Hall
Herbert, George (Rotherham)
Ormiston, Thomas


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hillman, Dr. George B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G, (Burnley)
Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Palmer, Francis Noel


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Holdsworth, Herbert
Patrick, Colin M.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Peake, Captain Osbert


Castle Stewart, Earl
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Pearson, William G.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Peat, Charles U.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hornby, Frank
Penny, Sir George


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Petherick, M


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Chotzner, Alfred James
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Pickering, Ernest H.


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hutchison, W, D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Pike, Cecil F.


Colville, Major David John
Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.
Potter, John


Cooke, James D.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wands worth, C.)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cooper, A. Duff
James, Wing-Corn, A. W. H.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Copeland, Ida
Jamieson, Douglas
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Jennings, Roland
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cranborne, Viscount
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Ramsbotham, Herswald


Crooke, J. Smedley
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ramsden, E.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Ker, J. Campbell
Rea, Walter Russell


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cross, R. H.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Remer, John R.


Crossley, A. C.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C C.
Law, Sir Alfred
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Robinson, John Roland


Denville, Alfred
Leckie, J. A.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Dickie, John P.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ross, Ronald D.


Dormer, P. W.
Lees-Jones, John
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rothschild, James L. de


Drewe, Cedric
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Levy, Thomas
Runge, Norah Cecil


Duggan, Hubert John
Liddall, Walter S.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)


Dunglass, Lord
Lieweilln, Major John J.
Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)


Eales, John Frederick
Lleweilyn-Jones, Frederick
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Eastwood, John Francis
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Salmon, Major Isidore


Eden, Robert Anthony
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)
Salt, Edward W.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Loder, Captain J. de Vera
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Eillston, Captain George Sampson
Mabane, William
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Elmley, Viscount
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Emmoll, Charles E. G. C.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Scone, Lord


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Selley, Harry R.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
McEwen, J. H. F.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
McKeag, William
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Everard, W. Lindsay
McKie, John Hamilton
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Fraser, Captain Ian
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E
Magnay, Thomas
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)


Fuller, Captain A. E. G.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gibson, Charles Granville
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Martin, Thomas B.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John M.
Soper, Richard


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Millar, James Duncan
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Goldie, Noel B.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Molson, A. Harold Eisdale
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Gower, Sir Robert
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Graves, Marjorie
Moreing, Adrian C.
Stones, James


Greene, William P. C.
Morgan, Robert H.
Storey, Samuel


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Stourton, John J.




Strauss, Edward A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Sutcliffe, Harold
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(Pd'gt'n, S.)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Womersley, Walter James


Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Thompson, Luke
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Wragg, Herbert


Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-



Thorp, Linton Theodore
Wells, Sydney Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Weymouth, Viscount
Major G. Davies and Major McKenzie Wood.


Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.





NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hicks, Ernest George
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hirst, George Henry
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McGovern, John
Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. John.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (PROLONGATION OF INSURANCE) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[CAPTAIN BOURNE in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That it is expedient—

(a) to amend the Sub-section substituted by the National Health Insurance Act, 1928 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1928'), for Sub-section (3) of Section three of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1924'), by providing that a person who has, under the said substituted Sub-section, or under that Sub-section as applied by the regulations made under Section twenty-three of the Act of 1928, or as amended by Section one of the National Health Insurance (Prolongation of Insurance) Act, 1930, been treated as an employed contributor insured under the Act of 1924, shall continue to be so treated until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, if he satisfies the condition contained in paragraph (a) of the said Sub-section, and also the following condition, that is to say, if he proves within the prescribed time that throughout the period during which he was by virtue of the said substituted Sub-section, or of that Sub-section as so applied or amended as aforesaid, treated as an employed contributor insured under the Act of 1924, he was at all times when not employed within the mean-
1168
ing of the Act of 1924 either available for but unable to obtain employment within the meaning of the Act of 1924, or incapable of work by reason of some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement of which notice was given within the prescribed time;
(b) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) of a sum equal to thirty-six Contributions (at the rate of ninepence in the case of a man and eightpence halfpenny in the case of a woman) in respect of every person to whom this Resolution applies, such sum to be paid or credited to the fund or account out of which the benefits to which that person is entitled are defrayed; and
(ii) of the additional cost of benefits under the Act of 1924, and the expenses of administration of those benefits (so far as such cost and expenses are payable out of moneys provided by Parliament) consequent on the provisions of paragraph (a) of this Resolution."—[[King's Recommendation signified.]—[Mr. Ernest Brown]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes before Twelve O'Clock.